Search Results

Can We Get Our Act Together? by Bill Paton, 24 September 2024, Xishuangbanna Over 130 world leaders, altogether representatives of 193 countries, are attending the Summit of the Future at United Nations Headquarters, which on Sunday adopted a Pact for the Future. It outlines a critically important vision, but reactions from many around the globe are likely to be cynicism and apathy. This attitude is tragically self-defeating. We must instead hold our leaders accountable for their promises, especially on long overdue reform of the UN Security Council, ending many of our wars and moving humanity forward. ___________________ For a long time, it has been fashionable—on both the left and the right—to view the United Nations with cynicism, dismissing it as merely a "talk shop." This perspective is particularly prevalent in the United States and also resonates in many other parts of the world, but not everywhere. For instance, China's government and people are very much in favour of making the UN fairer and thus stronger, as are majorities in many other countries, from Canada, to Poland, to Kenya, to the Philippines to Columbia（ see Pew Research . ） Use of the veto by the five Permanent members of the Security Council (or 'P5'), is what has most undermined potential for a more democratic United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, especially on matters of peace and security. Since 1989, the U.S. has used the veto by far the most (56% of the total times), more than 60 times alone in defense of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Russia most recently used it on the question of Ukraine (when it shouldn't have even been voting—see below). China has used the veto least, just 17 times, most recently together with Russia and in line with the Arab view, against a U.S. draft on Gaza it found too biased in Israel's favour. Commendably, the United Kingdom and France have refrained from using their vetoes at all for 35 years now. The accompanying photo shows the results of a recent vote on a UN General Assembly Resolution advocating the lifting of sanctions on Cuba. A total of 187 member states voted in favor, yet the Resolution failed to pass due to a veto from the United States, with only one other state (Israel) voting against it. This is just one example of the undermining of what should be a vibrant global democracy, able to more effectively address our planet's most pressing issues. Photo       Vetoing the will of 187 member states In addition to failing to maintain peace, the Security Council is failing in another respect; it frequently fails to enforce its own Resolutions. For instance, read the Council's Resolution 2334 on Israel's settlements in Occupied Palestine, passed in 2016 with 14 votes in favour, none against, and the U.S. abstaining. Additionally, a sensible and important rule in the UN Charter states that a member of the Council which is a party to a conflict should not vote on Resolutions about settlement of that dispute. This is also not enforced. There are, however, moments when the United Nations rises to the occasion. A notable example was the Millennium Summit in September 2000, where world leaders adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a unified plan for poverty reduction, and then went on to actually meet the primary target of halving absolute poverty, though not all of the other goals were met. The MDGs were succeeded by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yesterday the United Nations met our expectations once again. Over one hundred and thirty world leaders gathered for the annual global summit at the General Assembly, altogether representatives of 193 countries, who, following nine months of negotiations drafting the text, adopted a " Pact for the Future ." " We believe there is a path to a brighter future for all of humanity ... " The opening of the Pact states: " 1. We, the Heads of State and Government, representing the peoples of the world, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters to protect the needs and interests of present and future generations through the actions in this Pact for the Future . 2. We are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make. Fellow human beings are enduring terrible suffering. If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown. 3. Yet this is also a moment of hope and opportunity. Global transformation is a chance for renewal and progress grounded in our common humanity. Advances in knowledge, science, technology, and innovation could deliver a breakthrough to a better and more sustainable future for all. The choice is ours." This Pact is humanity's first ever comprehensive agreement on joint action on all the most important issues for humanity. There are sections on poverty and development again, but this time also on peace and security, youth and their future, science and technology and improving global governance. This last section contains the most critical actions agreed to be taken, on reforming the organization itself and in particular its most powerful organs, the Security Council and the General Assembly: "Action 39. We will reform the UN Security Council, recognizing the urgent need to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable. And: "(g) The question of the veto is a key element of Security Council reform. We will intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use." And: "Action 41. We will strengthen the response of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security and its relationship with the General Assembly." And: "We decide to: (a) Fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the United Nations Charter as they relate to the decision-making process in the UN Security Council, including Art. 27 (3) of the UN Charter." ['A party to a dispute shall abstain from voting on decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52'.] There is much more in the Pact than this, on several important topics, for instance on autonomous weapons. The document will one day be of of great historic importance. However, as those 130 world leaders now fly home, many mass media outlets will provide only scant and skeptical coverage of it. Admittedly, it is entirely possible the cynics will be right and we will suffer another decade of dithering and bickering without achieving meaningful agreement on Security Council reform or much else. We’ve already experienced over 30 years of this since the current Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform began. However, having forged this Pact—and made an exceedingly clear promise to one another and to ourselves, on this and other issues—we now have an opportunity to move forward. Over the next year, we could finally reach a compromise based on the agreed principles. It took less time than that to agree on the entire UN Charter. We could easily reconvene at the 80th United Nations Summit next September to agree on the promised reforms to the Council, thereby re-forging a body newly capable of stopping many of our wars. At the same time, we could also make progress on many of the other commitments in the Pact. We are perfectly capable. Humanity is making its own challenges and shaping its own future. Yesterday demonstrated that we understand, and can even all agree on, what needs to be done. Now—we need to do it.

We must take action by Bill Paton, 14 September 2024, Beijing Nuclear weapons are proliferating and their tactical use is becoming disturbingly plausible. All nine nuclear-armed nations are modernizing their arsenals, deploying new models of warheads. The U.S. is expanding its nuclear-capable missile launch systems around the world, Russia has a whopping 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons uncovered by any treaty, and China is growing its nuclear stockpile and silo system. After nearly 80 years, global nuclear arms control by the original five nuclear powers has failed, and non-nuclear states must unite to demand that they come to their senses. It can't be a good sign that the wealthy are preparing for the worst, investing heavily in new, luxury nuclear fallout shelters. For example, Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly acquired a Hawaiian island and is building a $400 million compound complete with an apocalypse bunker. (1) Bill Gates is rumored to have a bunker at each of his properties. This resurgence echoes the Cold War era when millions of people dug underground shelters in their backyards, stocking them with canned supplies. The start of the war in Ukraine sparked this renewed interest in bunker construction, and demand remains high. (2) Governments, recognizing the devastating power of hydrogen bombs targeted at their bunkers, have sold many of these structures off. In East Germany, one former bunker has been transformed into a luxury underground complex, offering multi-million-dollar 'bunker condos.' (2) With Russia now openly revising its nuclear weapons policy amid a counter-invasion by U.S./NATO-backed Ukraine, the risk of escalation is more palpable than ever. This is just one in a series of alarming developments: In 2016, NATO deployed launchers in Romania capable of firing nuclear-armed 'Tomahawk' missiles. In 2018, Russia revealed the 'Poseidon,' a drone submarine designed to detonate a 1-2 megaton bomb near coastal cities, causing devastating tsunamis. In 2019, both the US and Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had eliminated 2,692 missiles by 1991. The U.S. initiated the withdrawal, accusing Russia of violations while offering no evidence. China continues to bolster its nuclear arsenal, building more warheads and silos. Beijing remains uninterested in arms control talks with the U.S., citing the vast disparity in nuclear stockpiles—America's arsenal exceeds 5,000 warheads, while China’s is now thought to be about 500. (3) In 2021, Russia claimed leadership in hypersonic nuclear missile technology, with weapons capable of traveling over ten times the speed of sound and evading anti-ballistic missile defenses. That same year, the U.S., UK, and Australia agreed to give Australia the capability to build nuclear-powered submarines, though these will carry conventional weapons. By 2022, North Korea was believed to possess 20-30 nuclear weapons and enough fissile material for 25 more. Amid rumors of a second Trump presidency withdrawing U.S. protection, South Korea considered acquiring its own nuclear deterrent. In 2023, the U.S. established four new strategic military bases in the Philippines, aimed at countering China near Taiwan and the disputed Spratly Islands. Russia, in 2023, deployed nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missiles with extended range, capable of navigating undetected to any location via low-altitude, circuitous routes. Also in 2023, the U.S. began docking a nuclear submarine on a rotating basis at South Korea's port in Busan, each armed with 16 Trident missiles, totaling over 100 nuclear warheads. Officially aimed at deterring North Korea, these missiles are less than 10 minutes away from Shanghai or Beijing. Russia, in the same year, announced it had deployed nuclear missiles in Belarus. The U.S. also deployed nuclear-capable 'Typhon' launchers in the Philippines in 2023. The U.S. and Japan signed 70 military agreements this year, including plans for joint command over nuclear and conventional weapons, signaling an effort to jointly counter China. Last month, reports surfaced that President Biden approved a highly classified strategic nuclear plan aimed at China, and potentially a nuclear conflict with China, Russia, and North Korea combined. (4） This month, North Korea’s leader announced plans to significantly expand that country’s nuclear arsenal. Also this month, Russia announced they were revising their nuclear weapons policy and issued a warning that NATO’s use of medium-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia from Ukraine would necessitate NATO soldiers conducting the guidance and targeting themselves, at the least—and of their own weapons—which Russia would view as a direct NATO attack. The U.S. announced that in 2026, they will install nuclear-capable missile launchers in Germany. These events paint a deeply disturbing picture of escalating nuclear brinkmanship. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, all nine nuclear powers—the U.S., Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—are now investing in their arsenals and deploying new nuclear-capable delivery systems.（5） Since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into effect in 1970, 191 nations have signed it. The treaty limits nuclear weapon possession to the five original nuclear powers—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the U.S.—all of whom are signatories. The four other nuclear-armed states—India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea—have not signed. Article VI of the NPT commits the original five to disarmament, but this commitment remains far from reality. "Article VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." (6) Efforts by the U.S. and Russia to control nuclear weapons faced setbacks, to put it politely. SALT II was agreed upon in 1979 but not ratified. SALT III negotiations were never completed. New START finally succeeded SALT I in 2011 after 32 years of negotiations. In 2023, Russia suspended New START but pledged to maintain the 1,550 limit on 'strategic' weapons (the biggest bombs with intercontinental delivery systems, mostly missiles but also long-range bomber planes). The treaty expires in February 2026, with both nations likely to then increase their arsenals, if not before. Fifty years after a treaty to halt nuclear proliferation, the number of nuclear-armed countries has almost doubled, with all nine countries' arsenals expanding. During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) ruled U.S.-Soviet relations, emphasizing the deterrent of retaliatory strikes to prevent a first strike. In retrospect, this truly was mad: "If the militarily most powerful and least threatened states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster." Joseph Rotblat (7) There is speculation today that 'tactical' nuclear weapons could be used in battle without causing a global catastrophe. It is thought these 'smaller' bombs could be used on a battlefield, for instance to take out an enemy military base in one shot. Their blast yields range from much smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima to much bigger, but are generally slightly bigger at about 20 kilotons. This notion of taking the risk of starting a 'limited' nuclear war is truly Strangelovian, not just MAD but MADDER. How, after 80 years, did we reach this point? The biggest mistake was made 50 years ago, when we began trusting the big nuclear powers themselves to gradually disarm. Not only have they failed to disarm, and failed to prevent proliferation, they have focused on preserving and now improving their own superior nuclear capabilities. The Pact An important event, the Summit of the Future at the 79th UN General Assembly this month, will approve a far-reaching global Pact that goes beyond anything before. This ambitious agreement covers crucial topics including peace and security, technology, youth and global governance. Currently in its third draft, it will be finalized between now and 22 September, and will include a renewed commitment to disarmament: "We decide to: "(a) Recommit to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the context of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. "(b) Undertake further efforts, especially by the nuclear-weapon States, to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons, recognizing that the objective of the efforts of states in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control, including by taking steps to critically review the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies and avoiding a nuclear arms race." And: "(f) Seek to accelerate through concrete actions the full and effective implementation of existing, respective nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments, in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its agreed review outcome documents, including by adhering to relevant international legal instruments and through the pursuit of nuclear weapon free zones to enhance international peace and security and the achievement of a nuclear-weapons free world." (8)" Any new United Nations agreement, even one made in person by a majority of world leaders, is bound to be met with cynicism given members poor track records at following through on past agreements. However, this attitude is self-defeating. The Pact for the Future presents a historic opportunity to hold nuclear powers accountable, pushing them to finally honor their promises to disarm. Non-nuclear countries have the capability to take significant action, much more than they have previously. The 184 nations lacking nuclear weapons, if a majority work together, can collectively represent the majority of the world's population. Their goal is simply to honor a promise made five decades ago, signed by 191 countries, to prevent global destruction. What is required at this moment are innovative diplomatic strategies implemented in unity. For example, five European countries—Germany, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium—host U.S. nuclear weapons. Belarus, too, is hosting Russian nuclear weapons. These countries hold unrealized bargaining power, and far from making them more secure, the bases stocking those U.S. weapons will quite likely be incinerated in the first hour of a nuclear war. Both the NPT and the Pact for the Future call for establishment of regional nuclear-free zones. States should designate their parts of the world as nuclear-free, forcing nuclear powers to keep their weapons at home. The Law of the Sea should be modified to ban sailing Handmaidens of the Apocalypse continuously around the world. Let them refuse to sign a revised Law of the Sea (or refuse again; the U.S., Israel and North Korea never signed the original treaty), but lets block the passage whenever we can of any vessel suspected to be carrying nuclear weapons. We should certainly not let them use our ports. Another suggestion I can think of is to label visas for diplomats from nuclear-armed countries with a message highlighting their lack of respect for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (similar to the health warning on cigarette packets). These symbolic gestures, though small, can play a crucial role in maintaining the nuclear issue's visibility on the global stage. No doubt one or more of the nuclear powers will retaliate with a similar notice on other countries' diplomatic visas, but perhaps not as doing so to a majority of countries would only backfire. Great powers, or course, are not so easily overpowered, but the usual goal in a liberation struggle against a superior foe is merely to bring them to the negotiating table. That is doable. Sacrifices will be necessary to keep up the pressure in the face of nuclear powers' wrath. However, continued failure to harness the moral authority and strength of 184 nations, representing the majority of humanity, could lead to that majority spending its last days in underground parking lots, basements, and caves. Let's face it. For most of us, there will be no "Luxury Survival Condo." ___________________ 1) The Conversation, 29 February 2024. "Billionaires are building bunkers and buying islands". https://theconversation.com/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-and-buying-islands-but-are-they-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-or-pioneering-a-new-feudalism-223987 2) CBC News, 3 April 2002. "Bunker makers say business is booming — but there's a reason governments left bomb shelters behind". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bunker-business-1.6405487 3) SIPRI, 17 June 2024. "Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate—new SIPRI Yearbook out now". https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/role-nuclear-weapons-grows-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now 4) New York Times, 20 August 2024, "Biden Approved Secret Nuclear Strategy Refocusing on Chinese Threat". https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/us/politics/biden-nuclear-china-russia.html 5) SIPRI (cited above). 6) United Nations, Office for Disarmament Affairs: Treaties Database. "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)" . https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt (Emphasis added.) 7) ROTBLAT, Joseph, IKEDA, Daisaku (2007). A Quest for Global Peace: Rotblat and Ikeda on War, Ethics and the Nuclear Threat, I B Tauris & Company Ltd. 8) United Nations, 27 August 2024. [DRAFT] Pact for the Future: Rev.3. Action 26. We will steadfastly advance our efforts to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-pact-for-the-future-rev.3.pdf (Emphasis added.) 9) TIME, 29 June 2023. Here’s How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be. https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/ A team of interdisciplinary scientists estimated that a full-scale nuclear war between Russia and the United States, plus nuclear-armed NATO members UK and France, would kill five billion people, mostly from starvation during a long, dark frigid winter. They estimate that 99% of the population of the USA, Europe and China would die, along with 98% of Russians.

It's Plan to Make the World Safer? More Guns! by Bill Paton, 13 July 2024, Choeng Thale Far from defending itself against the long-gone Soviet Union, NATO today has become a menace, constantly increasing its already overwhelming military might and membership. It's recent Summit Declaration makes no mention at all of diplomacy, instead closing the door on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, making incendiary threats against China and claiming a global remit. By constantly raising the stakes, pursuing ever-farther-reaching hegemony, NATO has itself become the greatest threat to world stability. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada and a number of Western European countries for collective security against the Soviet Union. Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, it has continued to expand both its membership and its remit, relentlessly. According to NATO, official expenditure by its members on the military is expected to reach US$ 1.5 trillion in 2024.(1) The big spenders, led by the USA, do not declare all their military expenditure, for instance not counting military support to Ukraine and Israel, or intelligence-gathering, or bills for 'supplementary military expenditure'. As a result, the real figure is around $2 trillion or 2% of Global Product spent by NATO on its military. Official world military expenditure increased by 7% from 2022 to 2023 and will exceed $2.5 trillion in 2024.(2) Real military expenditure is now over US$ 3 trillion dollars—over 3% of Global Product, equal to the entire GDP of Africa—of which between 60% and 2/3 is spent by NATO members. Such figures do not include the enormous death and destruction wrought in our world's current batch of wars, in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and so on (it's a long list...). NATO's recent meeting in Washington to celebrate its 75th anniversary has produced two clear outcomes. Firstly, it blocked the path to peace in Ukraine with the following sentence: "... [W]e will continue to support [Ukraine] on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership." (3) Insisting that 'Russia bears sole responsibility for the war in Ukraine' (we hear this constant refrain that Russia's invasion was 'unprovoked'), NATO thus denies there is any logical cause for the war, and thus any logical diplomatic solution. In NATO's view, it is Russia that 'seeks to fundamentally reconfigure the Euro-Atlantic security architecture'. While it is generally well-understood, and clearly stated by President Putin for many years now, that relentless NATO expansion eventually provoked Russia's catastrophic invasions, beginning in 2014, NATO asserts that it is Russia that is seeking to fundamentally reconfigure security. In NATO's view, it is apparently not due to their continuous expansion up to Russia's borders over recent decades, including the positioning of nuclear missile launchers in Romania and plans to put them elsewhere. It is not in spite of Russia's repeated protests for years at that expansion, now continuing with the addition of Finland, Sweden and -- well -- supposedly Ukraine. It is not, either, because of NATO's betrayal of the Minsk peace accords which Ukraine signed with Russia after its first invasion in 2014. NATO's logic is a little difficult to follow. Secondly, while 'NATO' stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it now clearly seeks to extend its remit worldwide: "We will meet with the leadership of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea ... to discuss common security challenges and areas of cooperation. The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. We welcome the continued contributions of our Asia-Pacific partners to Euro-Atlantic security." China is of course not called 'China' but 'the PRC,' following a long tradition of using any available acronym to diabolize its foes (the USSR, the DPRK, the former GDR and so on...). It accuses China of cooperating economically with Russia and insinuates (without, of course, any evidence), that China supports Russia's manufacture of weapons (which Beijing vehemently denies). China, remember, has not recognized Russia's acquired territories in Ukraine and has made a 12-point peace proposal that was coolly received by Russia and Ukraine alike. All the while, NATO itself makes solemn commitments to continue supplying Ukraine directly with vast quantities of supposedly advanced weapons. In short, NATO's world is black and white, with themselves as the good guys and everyone opposed as just plain diabolical. Military, not diplomatic, solutions are the way forward, with considerable, ominous emphasis placed in the Summit Declaration on the importance of NATO's nuclear weapons. Most NATO member-countries abhor the US domestic policy of allowing its citizens to own many guns and tote them around in public. However, they do not seem to realize the same principle—that too many guns is dangerous—applies equally in the international community. No group of countries in human history has every been safer than NATO is today. With most of the world's military power grouped together, these 32 countries are invincible and should all be sleeping very well indeed. Instead, they fret about phantom risks, pursue expansion worldwide, and continuously provoke their perceived foes, despite their smaller capabilities. NATO places enormous emphasis on greater and greater military expenditure, particularly on new equipment, and almost all members are currently increasing their 'defense' budgets. NATO's plans include the addition of up to 50 more brigades or 250,000 additional troops, and a possible increase of 25% in members' minimum expenditure to a historic high of 2.5% of a member's GDP. This is despite the fact that NATO's military expenditure already amounts to 4% of their combined GDP of over US$ 50 trillion, which is half of Global Product (and not less than 2% of their GDP as it is frequently portrayed.) It also seeks to deploy nuclear and hyper-sonic weapons closer and closer to the borders of its perceived foes, citing such major risks as the potential of North Korea launching an inter-continental nuclear attack—the excuse given for putting nuclear capable missile launchers in Romania. If your already-very-well-armed neighbour keeps buying more and more guns, and prowling with them at your fence line, it makes you nervous. It makes you want to get better-armed yourself, or at least put an extra lock on the door. But NATO acts as if they do not understand this. Because they are so clearly 'the good guys', everyone else—even their declared enemies—should all feel comfortable as they continuously expand annihilation capabilities right up to their borders. This includes those new American nuclear missile launchers in Romania, planned American (nuclear-capable) missile launchers in Germany in 2026, an American nuclear-armed sub parked in South Korea (with over a 100 warheads ready to fire), eight nuclear submarines for Australia, and eight new American military bases in the Philippines (the list of such initiatives goes on and on). When China or others then increase their own defense capabilities, NATO expresses 'concern' and uses this as an excuse for still further military buildup. While NATO portrays itself as 'defensive' it has never had to defend itself.(4) In fact, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—collective defense against whom, remember, was it's raison d'être—it has invaded Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, wreaking huge and pointless death and destruction on all three; illegally conducted 'humanitarian bombing' in Serbia (a new concept); and conducted numerous other 'anti-terrorist operations' around the world. In recent years, NATO has also been actively discussing 'its role' in the Taiwan Straight. And while much of the Declaration talks about Ukraine (1200 words), or even Asia—so far from the Atlantic—the words 'Gaza', 'Palestine', 'Lebanon' or 'Israel' are not mentioned. NATO, it seems, prefers not to mention that particular war, so near its own borders. Nefarious NATO activities are not making our world a safer place. Not at all. They are making it more dangerous by continuously raising the stakes, thus systematically destabilizing the balance among competing security interests in different places around the globe. What would make the world safer is diplomacy—the vigorous pursuit of reasoned out, negotiated solutions to security problems and wars, based on compromise and the pursuit of lasting peace. This would require recognizing that the security concerns of others are also legitimate, including those of Russia, China, Iran and so on (it's another long list). Unfortunately, nowhere in the 5,300 words of NATO's Summit Declaration—not once—do the words 'diplomacy' or 'negotiations' or 'talks' appear. Apparently, they feel there is no need for compromise on their part or genuine negotiations with other parties. Since they are entirely in the right about everything, and their foes all entirely in the wrong about everything, there is no need to even talk to them. Instead, NATO figures, what the world needs to be safer is—more guns! ______________ 1) NATO (June 2024), Press Release: Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2024), https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf accessed 12 July 2024. 2) SIPRI (22 April 2024), Global military spending surges amid war, rising tensions and insecurity. https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity accessed 12 July 2024. SIPRI's latest figure is for 2023, at $2.443 trillion. Using NATO projections for 2024 we can see official expenditure will exceed $2.5 trillion this year. 3) NATO (10 July 2024), Washington Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. 10 July 2024 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm 4) In fact, the only time NATO has even claimed to defend itself was Operation Display Deterrence, for six days from 26 February to 3 May, 2003, in which it claimed was 'border defense' to deter 'Iraq aggression against Turkey' during the Iraq War. NATO, however, had invaded Iraq and not the other way around.

Chinese New Year in a World of Wars by William Paton, Beijing 4 February 2024 I am not much for horoscopes but this time it looks like Chinese astrology has it right: Beyond February 10, things start to become interesting, as Dragon years are epitomised by activity and reaction. The element associated with the 2024 Dragon is strong yang wood. In the five-elemental cycle, wood fuels the element of fire, and thus the quality of the Dragon is enhanced. Be prepared for an unpredictable and volatile year ahead. “Never a dull moment” is the phrase for 2024! [1] Why in the world is there so much turmoil? It is not simply due to the pace of change. It is because of a refusal to accept that change. As the Global South’s economies continue to catch up, their rising economic power must be more fairly reflected in a new world order, with greater roles in managing world affairs. Wise leadership would be actively revamping the institutions of the post-World War II order, soon to be 80 years old, to make them fairer. Instead, Western nations, led by the USA, have closed ranks, clinging to their shrinking power. American politicians especially, are determined to maintain their country’s global military and economic dominance. Rising resentment of the West in the developing world, combined with the greater economic sway needed to do something about it, is the main source of growing friction today along the world’s many fault lines. Choosing Wars In Gaza, over 100,000 people have been killed, wounded or are ‘missing,’ including at least 11,000 children killed – crimes committed by a state founded in good part by holocaust survivors and which was itself very recently the scene of butchery. The carnage offends any sense of decency, but Israel’s Prime Minister makes it clear it will continue to refuse Palestinians their freedom. Even if a ceasefire is agreed, their plan is to go back to fighting afterwards. Finding, unsurprisingly, that a very small number of the 13,000 staff in Gaza of the main UN relief agency, UNRWA, were supporting Hamas (mostly indirectly), the USA and many other donors have stopped funding its humanitarian aid. The Israeli government wants UNRWA shut down. Donors, however, appear to have realized this is going too far. The USA in particular, Israel’s chief arms supplier, goes through a charade of arguing with Israel about its policies, for instance ‘sanctioning’ four individual settlers in the West Bank. But the USA invariably supports Israel, no matter what; it will no doubt also back whatever it decides to do with the rubble and survivors. Ukraine was, until recently, pledged ‘unfailing’ military support by the USA and Europe, though it may be already failing in the USA. Continuous military encroachment on Russia’s borders, even placing nuclear-warhead capable missile launchers in Romania, provoked Russia’s repeated protests, and was the reason behind its disastrous decision to invade (again). Russia has been invaded repeatedly from Western Europe (Poland, Napoleon…), and the last time, in WWII, lost twenty-seven million souls. Only two weeks after Russia’s 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine, Turkish mediation was on the verge of a truce. Both Ukraine and Russia had even stated “progress was being made” on a deal in which Ukraine would remain militarily neutral. The USA and close allies strongly ‘urged’ Kiev not to compromise and continue the war.[2] A massacre in Bucha in May then exploded any desire for talks and the gruesome fighting continued, sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands more men. The war, though, will likely end with much the same deal that was on the table in Turkey, on 14 March, 2022. Both in Gaza and in Ukraine, war was chosen: it is obvious Palestinians should have long ago been given a state of their own, and that apartheid would not bring peace and should not have been allowed to continue for decades. And it is obvious that surrounding Russia with new NATO members (breaking a promise not to), was not a recipe for peace. Nor was deploying those nuclear-capable launchers in 2016; then withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; and then vowing to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, which would give the USA effective control of the Black Sea. According to the Institute for Peace Research in Oslo, deaths in state-based conflicts in 2023 reached their highest level since the fall of the Soviet Union, with over 50 such conflicts, more than any time since the Second World War.[3] Horrific wars continue in Ethiopia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, DR Congo, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Burkina Faso ... the list is long. Mexico’s struggle against organized crime, importing drugs into the USA – with at least 350,000 dead – is also war, as is Haiti's gang war. From the Ruins of Empire In From the Ruins of Empire, Pankaj Mishra describes how the developing world rejoiced at Japan’s naval victory over Russia in 1905, proving Europeans were not invincible.[4] From Atatürk in the Ottoman empire, to the young Nehru – who would become India’s first Prime Minister – rose a clamour of celebration. Sun Yat Sen, returning to China from London, recounted how Arab workers at the Suez Canal congratulated him, thinking he was Japanese. Other leading nationalists in Burma, Vietnam, Egypt, Persia and elsewhere, joined their voices in praise. Today, that same mood is continuing, in a transition from a world conquered and controlled by Europe and the United States, to one in which the majority will have a fairer say in its affairs. Yet the West remains fixated on the status quo. The USA – with just 4% of the world’s population but 50% of its weapons – has loudly declared it intends to remain dominant, worldwide. The Houthis in Yemen are not my favourite bunch. But their determination to do something to attack a US-led order they see supporting slaughter in Gaza is not hard to understand. Neither is Iran’s theocracy my model of governance, but it was a CIA-planned and sponsored coup in Iran, against its elected government, which led to the 1979 revolution, with its strongly anti-American overtone, taking the US Embassy hostage. Ever since then, Iran has opposed American domination in the Middle East, especially the persecution of Palestinians. Of course, ‘the other side of the story’ matters little in Washington, where even neutrality is not much tolerated. ‘You are either with us or against us’ is the motto. Whichever state does not support American hegemony is targeted by sophisticated ‘cognitive warfare,’ a never-ending campaign to sway public opinion. Each of its designated foes’ leaders is depicted as a despot, for cartooned figures make much better enemies than faceless states. China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Belarus, Hizbullah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine), Houthis (Yemen), various branches of Al Qaeda and Islamic State ... so many enemies！ In, the case of the Gaza war, cognitive warfare has at least partially failed, despite considerable effort. For instance, the New York Times and BBC, to name just two, have persisted – as late as January, three months after Hamas’ attack, 7 October, in leading with stories about that attack rather than giving the lead to the previous day’s bombings of innocent civilians in Gaza. What is encouraging is that this effort, and even efforts to suppress pro-Palestinian speech, has had limited effect. While most Western citizens appear to have bought the theory of ‘crazed Putin’s ‘unprovoked’ attack,’ which buries the back story of NATO expansion and nuclear threat, 11,000 dead Gazan children are more difficult to vilify. The majority in the West abhor mass murder in Gaza, and in the Global South condemnation of Israel and its US backing is near universal. While the tide of public opinion against Israel’s action in Gaza is good to see, it is also scary to watch tensions ratcheting up even further around the Middle East powder keg. How can we have come to this? I lay the biggest share of blame for poor world leadership on Washington’s doorstep, but the dearth of moral leadership is more widespread. For instance, where are the world’s faith leaders? Some have spoken up, but not very loudly. Above all, why do not more US allies stand up for Arab civilian lives, and more loudly, as most of their citizens want? South Africa has stepped up and is playing an important role, bringing charges against Israel in the International Court of Justice. That is leadership – a good example of the participation by the Global South in world affairs that we need much more of. The way forward is fairer representation in the world’s international institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, World Bank or IMF. However, the USA has a veto in all three (and has the sole veto in the Bank and IMF). Significant change in all three institutions is blocked by those vetoes, though admittedly UN Security Council reform is stalled by multiple countries. The problem, of course, is much wider. Wherever the US imagines its military dominance is threatened, for instance by China, Russia or Iran, an ally is often levered into a proxy war – as in the case of Ukraine. There is even a risk now, that Taiwan will be successfully egged into such an armed conflict. Any government opposed to US domination, elected or not, is diabolised and, often, overthrown. The USA has engineered regime change in more than 70 countries since WWII, most recently prying out the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan (who had attempted to have good relations with China and Russia as well as the USA.)[5] An American-backed uprising and coup ousted the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014. That government did not want to join NATO or get closer to the EU, to avoid provoking Russia – which looks, in retrospect, to have been very wise. However, the USA had its heart set on adding Ukraine and Georgia to its NATO cordon around Russia and the Black Sea. The first Russian invasion of Ukraine, and its annexation of Crimea, followed immediately, that same year. With morbid fascination, we are now also beginning to watch another US presidential election year. US policy today teeters back and forth between conflicting policies, joining and quitting institutions (and re-joining), raising trade barriers, blockading technologies, banning countries from the global banking system, applying copious sanctions, and of course, sparking new wars. Let us not forget that so far in 2024, the United States has launched or dropped 300 missiles and bombs on more than 100 targets in three Middle Eastern countries: Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Has war been chosen again? The USA has become the world’s most destabilizing force, and its presidential elections will make it even more dangerous – adding wood to the many fires burning, and starting new ones. That, unfortunately, is this year's horoscope from 10 February onward. _______________ [1]   Jill Lander, 8 Jan 2024, Chinese Horoscopes for the Year of the Wood Dragon 2024, in South China Morning Post, Leisure section. [2]   For the case about how the war in Ukraine was indeed provoked, see especially Prof. Jeffrey Sachs’ numerous articles about it. [3]   Peace Research Institute Oslo (July 2023), “New figures show conflict-related deaths at 28-year high, largely due to Ethiopia and Ukraine wars.” [4]   Pankaj Mishra (2012), From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [5]  O’Rouke, Lindsay (2018), Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War, Cornell University Press, cited in Sachs, Jeffrey, 1 February 2024), The US Toppling of Imran Khan, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-ouster-of-imran-khan. O’Rouke details 64 countries where the USA engineered regime change during the Cold War, in many countries more than once. Rather than try to duplicate her work for the most recent three decades, I merely add the most commonly accepted cases – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan to Ukraine and Pakistan, to exceed the number 70. The reader will note how frequently these interventions were accompanied by wars.

China is not the Aggressor in the South China Sea by William Paton, Beijing 2 June 2024 The United States has convinced the world that China is behaving aggressively in the South China Sea and must be countered, yet it is the USA which is behaving brazenly, courting disaster. Halfway across the world from home, it is openly preparing for war, surrounding China ever-more closely, opening ever more bases, and skirting China's coasts daily with its warships, submarines, airplanes and drones. When China improves its defenses, the US says: 'See what a threat they are?' How can the world not see this for what it is: A declining hegemon clinging to dominance, dancing on China's doorstep. Defense officials are meeting presently at the annual Shangri-li-La Dialogue in Singapore, Asia's premiere defense forum, where the American Secretary of Defense just accused China of 'bullying'. Lately, Western media were running photographs over and over, of China using a water cannon in a dispute with a Philippine supply ship. Meanwhile, US ships and planes daily skirt Chinese territory, unreported, often within a mile or less of the limit of its territorial waters (12 nautical miles). Hundreds of confrontations have occurred between Chinese planes or ships and their American counterparts, but only when USA forces have approached Chinese territorial waters or, as they frequently do, or entered the territorial waters of Chinese possessions, such as in the Paracels. The US military then routinely claims the Chinese behaved dangerously, omitting the location whenever they were flying embarrassingly close to China. Beijing reported nearly 2,000 sorties by American military aircraft near or in Chinese airspace from January to October, 2023. This is absurdly provocative -- far beyond any spraying with a fire hose, as regrettable as that is. Map 1 Major American Military Bases Surrounding China The United States maintains major military bases in: Wake Island, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, mainland Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Australia, and Diego Garcia. An exhaustive list includes other smaller sites in the Indian or Pacific Oceans, most taken by force long ago, as was first Hawaii. The USA military also enjoys visiting other ports and airports with nuclear weapons-capable ships and aircraft, including in Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan. Since 2020, the USA has undertaken aggressive expansion of its military alliances in the region, signing a deal to sell Australia at least eight nuclear-powered submarines and expanding it's bases there. It has also recently expanded its bases in the Philippines, including islands closest to Taiwan. In 2023, an American 'Ohio class' nuclear-submarine began mooring in Busan, South Korea, on a rotational basis, carrying more than 100 nuclear warheads on 16 ballistic missiles, and additional cruise missiles. Just 865 km from Shanghai and 1270 from Beijing, these boats can fire all their missiles in one salvo, taking just a few minutes to reach China's key cities. China reported 13 sightings of Ohios in the South China Sea last year alone, meaning these monsters of the apocalypse are constantly on the prowl near it's shores. The USA already has China completely surrounded on all it's maritime borders, in addition to bases to China's west, in Kyrgyzstan (see Map 1), but it still continues to expand. Most recently, it added four more new bases in The Philippines, pointedly at locations closest to China (see Map 4). US military activities around China also include various secret deployments. For instance, in March this year, Taiwan revealed that US Green Berets and a Special Ops squad are permanently stationed on one of its islands, less than two kilometers from mainland China. (1) China neither has the capability nor the intention to expel all these US boats and planes from the South China Sea. It merely seeks to attain a sufficient defensive posture to feel it's oil supply and trade are reasonably secure. While the Western media make constant hay how the number of Chinese navy ships now exceeds the USA's, they conveniently forget USA ships have far greater tonnage. In this charade, an American aircraft carrier counts for no more than a Chinese frigate. In truth, the United States and its close allies have a total of 36 aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers, compared to China's 5. They have a total of 26 submarines capable of carrying and launching ballistic (nuclear) missiles, compared to China's 7. Over the years the USA has annexed Guam, conquered the Philippines, and annexed and built a military base on the atoll of Wake Island. It added 14 more Northern Mariana Islands to US territory after conquering them in the Second World War, when it also conquered the Marshall Islands, thereafter using them for nuclear weapons tests that left them poisoned with radiation. The UK seized Diego Garcia from Mauritius by force and then expelled its inhabitants between 1968 and 1973, so that a joint US/UK military base could be established. After the battle of Okinawa, a remote Japanese island territory, large swaths of farmland were seized from the surviving locals to build US military bases. Okinawa was only returned to Japan in 1972. The USA has also, of course, fought major wars in the Korean Peninsula, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, thus it has demonstrably not been a force for peace in the Region, as it often claims. Against this historical background, the USA today condemns China's building of defensive military installations on atolls in the South China Sea. China genuinely fears that the USA will one day attack it. Since 2015, there has been much discussion of Thucydides Trap, a theory promoted by American political scientist Graham Allison about how an existing great power (the USA), is likely to attack a rising great power (China), before it becomes too strong to defeat. Many in China believe the USA will soon use 'the defense of democracy in Taiwan' as their excuse for war with China. Indeed, Taiwan may indeed be the nexus of the US/China conflict. The USA prevented China from re-taking Taiwan after 1949 by stationing troops there until 1979, and by supporting it militarily ever since, despite agreeing in writing it is part of China and not formally recognizing it, a staggering duplicity. The USA's chief motivation for 'supporting' (read sacrificing), Taiwan is to maintain strategic control of the 'First Island Chain' which surrounds the South China Sea and China. This is also the reason behind USA antipathy to China's defenses on atolls. It seeks every conceivable military advantage, without limits. Like it's expansion of NATO against the borders of Russia in Eastern Europe, it will never stop pushing, as far as it can go. China's activities in the South China Sea have been considerably more reasonable than portrayed. Altogether, China occupies 28 possessions in the South China Sea, of which 20 are in the Paracel Islands, close to China's mainland and Hainan Province (see Map 2). The Paracels were seized from China by Japan during the Sino-Japanese war of 1937-1945, and China returned there immediately after the war, in 1946. They are closer to China's coast than to any other country's. Vietnam's navy attacked them half a century ago, towards the end of the Vietnam War -- attempting to expel China -- and lost. Another 7 islands or features occupied by China are found are in the Spratlys, farther South, which are claimed in their entirety by Vietnam, the Philippines, China and Taiwan (separately). Vietnam occupies 21 of the Spratlys and was first to begin reclaiming land on and militarizing one, in the 1980s. Even the Philippines occupies more islands and atolls than China in the Spratlys (eleven). China's huge mistake is an international public relations catastrophe, in that its 'ten-dash line' looks greedy (now ten dashes since an additional dash was added east of Taiwan). Nor has it ever explained clearly what it means by those dashes. While the ten-dash line looks unfair, it clashes today with the expansive claims in the Sea of others, including Vietnam, The Philippines and Taiwan acting separately. The original 'nine-dash line' was presented by today's government of Taiwan, the former Republic of China, to the United Nations in 1948, before they lost power in the mainland and fled to their island. They still had a permanent seat and veto in the United Nations Security Council at that time. Their nine-dash map drew no objections whatsoever, neither from the United States nor the Philippines, until more than half a century later. Taiwan, today, continues to separately claim the same nine-dash line area in the the South China Sea as its territory. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea only came into force only in 1994, when the 60th country signed it. For historical context, consider the UK's claim to the Falkland Islands and its waters, so far from London, which provoked Argentina to go to war. China cannot guarantee protection of its supplies of oil, food and goods passing through the South China Sea. Beijing is reportedly considering Thailand's offer to build a 'land bridge', or port-to-port rail and road link, across the Malay Peninsula. This would provide an alternative to the choke point at the Straits of Malacca, tightly controlled by US naval and air bases in Singapore, where the Straits are narrowest (see Map 3). Just one of the US bases at Singapore, right beside the Straits, maintains 100 helicopters armed with anti-ship missiles, other weaponry and an unknown number of drones such as the 'Predator'. The continuing construction of such American military facilities surrounding China and the South China Sea have left Beijing feeling it must build defensive installations wherever it can, including on islands and reclaimed atolls. It is US aggressiveness that is driving the friction, not China's. China's occupation of the Scarborough Shoal is the most controversial point, provoked in 2012 when the Philippines navy attempted to apprehend eight Chinese boats, fishing nearby. It is at that Shoal, again, that they are now famously spraying their water cannon. Scarborough Shoal is closer to Manila than China and so China's position, at first glance, appears unreasonable. However, when seen together with the location of the USA's four additional new military bases in the Philippines, established in 2023 complete with launchers for nuclear cruise missiles1, it is more understandable (see Map 4). The USA is expanding its military posture far more aggressively than China. Imagine, too, how the map would look if the Shoal were instead under American control, through it's alliance with its former colony. The United States also makes much of the fact that the International Court of Justice ruled against China's claims, including the dash line, in 2016, ruling they contravened the Law of the Sea. Of course it matters not to Washington that they themselves have refused to ratify either the Court or the Law, and that they themselves frequently reject the Court's other rulings, such as recently on Gaza. This author strongly supports the International Court of Justice but their ruling may have been flawed in this instance. China argued in a White Paper that their claim was a question of sovereignty and thus not subject to the Court's jurisdiction, which considers resource rights. China long ago offered to split those rights with The Philippines. They withdrew from arbitration, in writing, one year in advance, as required, and thus were not represented when the 'arbitration' took place. A panel of four our of five Western judges, one appointed by the Philippines (and none by China), ruled on the matter. This hardly seems fair. To the USA's disappointment, China and The Philippines seem close, once again, to reaching a bilateral compromise on the issue and are meeting behind the scenes in Singapore during the Shangri-La Dialogue. The United States opposes peaceful settlement of the issue through bilateral negotiations, as its military allies in the region are less supportive of military expansionism if there is the prospect of lasting peace. China can not be sure, either, of it's access to the Pacific Ocean from the South China Sea, exiting the Sea eastward through channels such as the Bashi Channel south of Taiwan, or the Miyako Strait north of Taiwan. The disputed Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands near Taipei, are key (see Map 5). The USA of course backs Tokyo's claim to the islands, which would give Japan, and thus themselves, yet another key military base even nearer Taiwan and China. This is not all just some silly game. The USA is doing much the same thing it did to Russia, pressing closer and closer, surrounding China tighter and tighter, believing everything they do themselves to be right, that 'the enemy' is entirely in the wrong, and that compromise is unnecessary because they are strongest. Russia eventually drew a red line, in Ukraine, and the United States still pushed on, even sponsoring a coup in Ukraine to overthrow an elected President who favored neutrality. This behavior led to a Russian invasion of Ukraine soon after the coup, in 2014, and a war that continues today. China too, has a red line, around Taiwan, a renegade Province it would long ago have reintegrated if not for US interference. With nuclear submarines now under construction for Australia, a nuclear submarine permanently parked across from Shanghai, more and more US bases, including newly installed nuclear-missile launchers, and new war pacts all tightening the noose, Beijing may very well conclude -- as Moscow did -- that they have to stand up for themselves, for their sovereignty and for their security, now, not later. This will be another senseless tragedy, another needless war provoked by ceaseless US military expansion. If it happens, like a child's tantrum (in this case a childish hegemon's), it will be scarily difficult to control. _______________ https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-confirms-us-troops-front-line-islands-near-china-1880865. U.S. Military Bases in the Indo-Pacific. Source: "The invisible empire: Why the United States is not seen as a `foreign' threat," Class Conscious, May 5, 2018, https://classconscious.org/2018/05/05/the-invisible-empire-why-the-united-states-is-not-seen-as-a-foreign-threat/. Screen captured from John Pillinger's documentary, The Coming War on China, who sourced it from Base Contact. ___________________________

Council Reform is Still Going Nowhere by William Paton, Beijing 20 September 2023 Will we wake up on September 27th to read the front-page headline: “World Fails Again to Agree! No Progress Made on Peace and Security?” No, as usual, we will wake up to read stories about the war between Russia and Ukraine, a war involving, directly or indirectly, four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5). Perhaps we will also read about one of the many other wars, or another coup-d’état. So, what will happen on September 26th? Or rather, what won’t? That day, the General Assembly will conclude six days of annual High-Level Debate, begun September 19th. One hundred and forty-five Heads of State or Government are expected to attend this, the most important meeting in the world. The agenda includes a High-level Political Forum on our slow progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. The Secretary-General will convene a Climate Ambition Summit, to discuss how badly we are off track reducing emissions. There will also be a High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, where leaders can reflect on their dismal lack of international cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic. There will be no special discussion of Security Council reform, but many will repeat calls for it in their speeches during the General Debate. After 30 years of fruitless negotiations on Council reform, their statements will carry all the weight of wishes for “world peace” by contestants in a beauty-contest. In the latest session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform (IGN), March 2023, four of the P5 didn’t bother to make a statement and the one that did, the UK, barely addressed the topic. All 193 UN Member States have agreed that Security Council reform is badly needed, yet the international community remains stuck. The joke is that ‘IGN’ stands for “It’s Going Nowhere.” Well, it’s going there again. Humanity faces grave security threats. The threat of nuclear annihilation swings more wildly again over our heads. Colossal damage to our environment is bringing the planet nearer and nearer to its sixth mass extinction (remember, the last one wiped out the dinosaurs.) We fear we may fail to control new technologies such as AI and quantum computing, likely combined. And there are endless, ‘conventional’ wars, killing millions, leaving us constantly at risk of starting World War III. While many Western countries will condemn the invasion of Ukraine, the representatives of 193 member states are about to spend a week doing nothing meaningful about the elephant in the room – our poorly functioning UN Security Council. The prevention and resolution of war is the job of the Security Council. After more than three-quarters of a century, the original P5, with their vetoes, remain dominant. Since 1965, there are 10 rotating seats, for a total of 15 members. However, any country that applies to fill a rotating seat can be vetoed by a member of the P5. At the heart of global governance, we do not have a democracy. We have a dysfunctional oligarchy. The UN Charter itself was negotiated, agreed and signed in just 10 months In 1944-45, in two long meetings totalling 14 weeks in length, half a year apart, five major powers and 45 other countries agreed on the United Nations Charter. In the space of ten months, Roosevelt followed by Truman, reached agreement with Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle, Chiang Kai-shek and then 45 others. They proposed and counter-proposed, jostling for leverage for a time, but then at the second meeting, in Los Angeles, they compromised and cajoled the others to agree (making it clear, either they got vetoes or there would be no UN). The matter was settled by the eighth week, when all 50 countries’ representatives signed the Charter in a single day, a major milestone in humanity’s history. Unfortunately, it was a flawed formula. The veto has been used nearly 300 times, mostly by the former Soviet Union or the United States. The P5 also choose the chairpersons of the various subcommittees of the Council, and almost always reserve for themselves the role of ‘penholder,’ the lead drafter of proposed resolutions. They also control the choice of Secretary General, must approve any changes to the UN Charter, can veto other countries from being on the Council, and exercise considerable ‘hidden veto power’ by snuffing out initiatives before they gain momentum. Despite these disfigurements, the Security Council still inspires. I several times witnessed it in action, including in the back room where the 15 representatives hold a less formal, surprisingly frank pre-meeting. The Council is better than anything the world has ever had, which is why we must improve it. We need only agree on how to tweak this one aspect of the Charter, on the Council’s membership. Yet, after 30 years of talks, we are still failing to find the courage to compromise. A total of 100 countries today are fighting or fueling a war, or experiencing an armed conflict A total of 39 countries are currently experiencing or fighting in wars (a ‘war’ is a conflict which directly killed at least 1,000 persons in the current year or last.)[i] This does not include countries indirectly involved, for instance by supplying arms to, or backing militias on one side. There are many such countries, bringing the total to at least 60 countries either fighting or fueling wars. Adding major conflicts (those that killed less than 1,000 persons this year or last, but more than 100), gives us 15 other countries,[ii] for a total of 75. North Korea and South Korea are technically still at war, after 73 years, giving us 77 countries either at war, fueling a war, or experiencing a major armed conflict. At least 11 more as-yet-uncounted countries are backing one side (or both!), in one or more of these conflicts, for a total of 88. ‘Minor conflicts’ (killing less than 100 persons per year, officially), are occurring in a further 12 countries,[iii] for a grand total of at least 100 different countries fighting or fueling wars or armed conflicts, today. UN Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding and Mediation In response, the United Nations Security Council currently has 12 peacekeeping missions, several of which, such as Cyprus or Western Sahara, are ancient. For a total cost of just $5.5bn dollars for the current budget year (1/20th of New York City’s budget), 76,000 troops and 10,000 police and other civilians currently serve in these missions. Peace-keeping doesn’t always work well, but on average, it does work. Cambodia, Mozambique and East Timor are some successful examples. Despite this, one P5 member repeatedly falls up to a billion dollars in arrears on its contributions to missions, missions which it has voted to approve. Only one P5 member, China, now contributes troops to these missions. The United Nations Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund is the UN Secretariat’s leading mechanism to help prevent conflict or re-build the socio-economic foundations needed for a long-term peace, in addition to some of the UN agencies. The Fund averages just $164m in voluntary contributions per year for the world. The UN Secretary-General proposed in 2022 to give the Fund a regular budget of $100m per year (about the price of one advanced fighter jet, of which there are thousands), but that was rejected by several P5 members. The resolution adopted instead, suggested, inter alia, that the Secretary-General raise money for peace building from the private sector. During wars, or when they are imminent, the UN’s capacity for mediation is also limited, usually sending a single, talented envoy, together with a few colleagues, to try to stop a war – even a major war. Former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, served as such an envoy as the war in Syria broke out, and resigned in frustration, in good part due to the P5’s failure to get behind him. Announcing his resignation at a press conference in Geneva, he complained about “finger-pointing and name-calling in the Security Council.”[iv] As for the current war between Ukraine and Russia, there was no UN attempt at mediation before Russia’s invasion. The Council did not mandate one, paralyzed by Russia’s veto just as it was paralyzed by the US veto when the USA illegally invaded Iraq the second time. Most P5 members frequently fight or fuel wars themselves. Only China has not fought a war for over four decades. It is a Collective Failure It would be wrong to pin all the blame for lack of Security Council reform on the P5. Other blocks of countries have also proven intransigent, fearing that a once-in-a-century opportunity for improvement will pass them by. India, Brazil, Japan and Germany have formed the ‘G4’ to support each other’s claim to a permanent seat (plus, they add, two African nations). The African Union does want at least two permanent seats, but ones which its member countries will fill themselves on a rotating basis (and not, as at present, first subject to P5 veto and then elected by the entire General Assembly). The Uniting for Consensus group, which attracted 120 Member States to a meeting in Rome back in 2011, wants decision-making by consensus of most member states, and not just a 2/3 majority in the General Assembly. They propose maintaining the P5 but with 20 more non-permanent seats allocated regionally. This is a reasonable proposal, made by a clear majority, yet the P5 do not agree to begin drafting a resolution, that could focus negotiations going forward. There are also sometimes glimmers of progress. Last year, a proposal by Copenhagen was adopted unanimously (Bravo!), in the General Assembly, that after a P5 member uses a veto, a special debate will be held within 10 days, compelling the veto-er to explain themselves. The UK and France also deserve great credit for refraining from using the veto since 1989. France and Mexico co-sponsored a proposal that the P5 voluntarily refrain from using the veto in matters of mass atrocities. That was further endorsed in a Code of Conduct supported by 104 countries in 2015, which also called for more democratic selection of the Secretary General. Neither initiative took hold. Humanity’s Alarming Bellwether This pathetic state of our world affairs bodes ill for our future. Each time we do not rise to this straightforward challenge, to agree on allocating some additional seats to make the Council more democratic, we reveal ourselves to be childishly incapable of working together. The endless stalling is an ominous bellwether of things to come, perhaps dooming humanity to a future in which we will tragically fail to solve our common problems and, ultimately, fail as a species. What we do not need is more arbitrarily-selected members, picked by P5 bargaining in the back room. Instead of plutocracy, our world needs more democratic, regional representation. Let the P5 cling to their ‘legacy’ seats and vetoes. They will never give them up. However, beyond this, let them show some leadership. Their seats are a responsibility, not just powerful perches. A reasonable proposal is to give the five regions,[v] five seats each (much as the 120 suggested in Rome), with the tally to include their P5 members, for a total of 25. A 60% majority still, or 15 votes, would be required to pass a resolution. The revised Charter, while maintaining the five legacy permanent seats/vetoes, should call on the P5 ‘to voluntarily refrain from casting their vetoes,’ and enshrine in the Charter the obligatory General Assembly debate within 10 days of a veto being cast. Regions themselves should choose their own representatives, and their choices should not be subject to veto. Should they want a permanent member, they can repeatedly re-elect them, reinforcing the accountability of that state. If only we could lock the entire General Assembly in conclave, including those 145 Heads of State or Government. Just bar the doors, supplying them with food and water, beds and telephones, but no booze. I suspect it would not be 30 days, much less 30 years, before the white smoke appeared. _______________ [i] Afghanistan, Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, DR Congo, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen. The ICRC takes the lead in counting but Wikipedia has an up-to-date list. [ii] Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Chad, El Salvador, India, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Palestine, Philippines, Turkey, Mozambique and Tanzania. [iii] Angola, Egypt, Brazil, Georgia, Indonesia, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Thailand and Western Sahara. [iv] Statement by former Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, United Nations, Geneva, 2 August 2012. [v] African States, Asia-Pacific States, Eastern European States, Latin American and Caribbean States, Western European and other States. Arab states representation is shared between regions.

Can Developing Countries Lead the Way to a More Just World? by William Paton, Beijing 14 April 2024 The war in Gaza, risking the sparking of a larger war in the Middle East, lays bare, once again, the frightful arbitrariness of international justice. International rule of law has always been about rule by great powers, and far less about impartial application of our world's laws, laws which have been suspended for Israel. The USA, in particular, refuses to abide by many key laws, even ones almost all other countries accept, picking and choosing as it likes. It is clearer than ever, if we want a more just and more peaceful world, developing nations -- the Global Majority -- must stand up and demand one law for all. Making up the rules Perry Anderson writes that international law has always been subservient to the dominant powers. While there had for thousands of years been some inkling of 'laws of war', nothing was codified. Until, that is, an inspired Dutchman, Hugo Grotius, wrote his 1625 treatise, The Law of War and Peace, (1) beginning a new great power game of making up laws to suit themselves, and ignoring them whenever they liked. Adam Smith and Emmanuel Kant condemned colonialism in the latter part of the 1700s, putting its morality, and its legality, on the world agenda. After centuries, the slaving nations of Europe and the United States made trade in humans illegal, beginning with Denmark in 1803, followed by the UK and USA and then all major European powers by the 1830s. They finally ended the trans-atlantic slave trade in the 1860s, by which time most slaves were freed. At that point, things seemed off to a good start; Europe was slowly stitching together a patchwork of national and international law. It was, however, often unjust; for instance, the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna accorded extraordinary powers to the UK, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France, compared to other states. In 1883, a prescient Scot, James Lorimer, seized on this as proof states were not, in fact, equal. (1) European powers saw emerging international law as purely their own invention. Yet Mencius, a Confucian philosopher, condemned hegemony in the fourth century BCE, arguing then already that inter-state relations should be guided by moral principles. Though he accepted there was a hierarchy among states, he believed conflicting interests among rulers should be reconciled peacefully, over time. Mencius saw war for land or people as immoral and proposed that rulers have a duty to intervene in the affairs of other states to promote peace and righteousness. (2) Over two millennia later, this same principle was adopted in the United Nations Summit Outcome Document in 2005, as the Responsibility to Protect or 'R2P.' Never mind, either, Indian thinkers, another state whose culture was already rich in philosophy about justice and rule. Europe then plunged into a series of devastating wars and the United States emerged as the world's new, self-appointed, 'General Counsel.' In 1920, the victorious allies of World War I created the League of Nations, the first world organisation dedicated to keeping the peace. The United States never joined. Japan, Germany and Italy quit in the 1930s. The Soviet Union only joined in 1935 and was expelled in 1939 for invading Finland. Europe fell back into World War II, including the Holocaust that spurred establishment of the state of Israel in part of Palestine. The victorious allies created a new organization, again aimed at preventing future wars, the United Nations. But in 1945, in Los Angeles, the United States, Britain, France, the USSR and China made it clear they must have a veto over all important decisions. That day is often heralded as an inspirational moment, when nations came together for saner global governance. But by once again acknowledging that five states would be 'more equal than others,' they may well have doomed us to yet another world war. Any one of those five states can still today, 78 years later, veto the will of all the other 192. (To their credit, France and UK have both refrained since 1989, at the end of the Cold War.) The veto is what leaves the UN's Security Council unable to intervene in so many of the armed conflicts around the world, some of which, like the war in Gaza, with the potential to mutate into World War III and consume us all. That may even be happening right now. It can be argued the other 46 founding states who signed in Los Angeles that day should not have caved in so easily, and have held out for a better deal. However, as Hugo wrote, the great powers would not have accepted so fair an international justice system. International rule of law was to be just another instrument of their power over others, backed as always by the threat of violence, if in a slightly less arbitrary fashion. Indeed, the United States and allies such as the UK, prefer not to talk of international rule of law at all, choosing instead to speak of 'upholding a rules-based international order,' an order they continue to dominate. Ignoring the Laws Since World War II, many new international laws were set up under USA leadership, even though the USA often refused to accept that those laws apply equally to themselves. For instance, they have refused to join, ratify and abide by, the: doomed League of Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (193 parties), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (187 parties), International Criminal Court (121, though neither China nor Russia have joined either), UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (161 parties), Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (157 parties), The Kyoto Protocol (on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries (160 parties), Paris Agreement on climate change (195 signatories), (the USA joined, quit, and rejoined but may quit again soon), Ottawa Convention on landmines (164 parties), Convention on Biological Diversity (196 parties; the USA is the only UN member state that has not ratified it). The USA also clings to its sole veto power in the: World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, both headquartered in Washington, insisting that even if all the other 189 member states agree on something, it can veto it alone. The USA has also now withdrawn from other legal agreements including the: Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (along with placing nuclear launchers in Romania), World Trade Organization, (de facto, by blocking approval of judges, leaving the WTO unable to hear new cases), and will possibly also withdraw from the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT 2) which Trump has promised to do if re-elected, eliminating limits on nuclear weapons. signed trade agreements, too, are routinely torn up. Nonetheless, there have also sometimes been glimmers of light -- encouraging moments such as the Geneva Convention on war, in 1949; or 1967, when the USA, Russia and United Kingdom were first to sign the UN Outer Space Treaty, banning nuclear weapons in space or militarization of the moon; or the original signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, based on an innovative new approach. The Laws of War International Humanitarian Law is grounded in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, together with other treaties and customary international law. It applies to both states and non-state armed groups, no matter what the other side has done, and also governs conflict during illegal occupation of a territory. The fundamental rule of international humanitarian law in conflict is that all parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and civilians and civilian objects must never be targeted. It is not enough to claim civilians are not the target; the law requires parties to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects. If an attack will likely cause disproportionate harm to civilians, it is prohibited. Taking hostages is prohibited and prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Attackers must warn civilians of impending danger and take all feasible measures to protect them, even those who do not evacuate. Statements that are not genuine warnings, but are intended to threaten violence to force people to leave, are prohibited. War Crime in Gaza Lays Bare Our International Legal Disorder For decades now, Israel has illegally occupied the Gaza Strip, rendering it a criminally apartheid, open-air prison. Palestine has been accepted by the UN as a non-member observer state, making Israel undeniably the illegal occupier of another state. War crimes committed in Gaza since the Hamas attacks in Israel, 7 October, include deliberately attacking civilians. They have not only bombed houses indiscriminately; they have put in place a scheme to wait to target people once they have returned to their homes, so as to kill their spouses and children too (the software is called 'Where's Daddy' and has been widely reported on in Israel). Most homes and buildings in a territory of 2.4 million people have been destroyed or badly damaged, including most hospitals and schools, again deliberately. Over 13,000 children have been killed. Deliberately. Israel is also committing the war crime of collectively punishing Gaza’s entire population, cutting off food, water, electricity and fuel, and displacing almost the entire population. It is also committing the war crime of wilfully blocking humanitarian relief, causing large-scale famine in which children, especially, are now literally starving to death. The list of crimes is much longer, including massacres, forced evacuation and torture. For instance, one Israeli doctor at a field hospital in Gaza went public: 'Two prisoners had their legs amputated due to handcuff injuries,' he said, describing deplorable conditions and violations of medical ethics and the law in a letter to Israel's Attorney General. (4) Human Rights Watch says they have confirmed video footage of Israel using white phosphorous over civilian neighborhoods in Gaza and Lebanon, a chemical which burns to the bone, another war crime. (5) Yes, Hamas started this round of fighting, and has also committed war crimes, targeting civilians, taking hostages, most likely including rape and torture, and using civilians as shields. But the Law of War is clear: Nothing the other side has done justifies war crimes. American Culpability As evidence of war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon is overwhelming, the parties should be held accountable. The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has jurisdiction over war crimes and other serious international crimes committed in Palestine. By continuing to arm and provide political protection to Israel, the United States is, once again, brazenly flaunting application of international rule of law. The US has used its veto 42 times to block Security Council resolutions condemning Israel's persecution of Palestinians. The majority of arms being used in Gaza by Israel are American: The Washington Post revealed in late March 2024, that Washington's current arms packages for Israel includes more than 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs. Such 2,000-pound bombs have already caused illegal, mass-civilian deaths in Gaza and more are being delivered to Israel right now. Altogether, the USA has made more than 100 sales and deliveries of arms to Israel since the war's start, 7 October, dividing the arms into smaller sales in order to stay under a threshold and thus avoid Congressional scrutiny. The USA is also breaking its own laws, rather absurdly, by pretending to find 'no violations of humanitarian law in Gaza by Israel,' which if admitted would oblige suspension of arms sales to them. The White House tries hard to spin it, spouting rhetoric about Israeli 'excesses' to mollify Palestine's defenders, while leaving no doubt whose side they're on. What action has been taken by other 'upholders' of the 'rules-based international order?' Well, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium have all suspended arms sales to Israel, but none are a significant source. Before the war already, eight EU members had recognised Palestine as a state, (3) and now Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and Malta are discussing joining them. But apart from the USA, other key Western powers including the UK and Germany also continue to support Israel strongly, at present providing them with significant amounts of new arms to use in Gaza. The New Champions of International Justice? Today's new champions of rule of law in Palestine are over 60 countries of the Global South who are supporting the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court, brought first by South Africa (who know apartheid well), under the 1948 Genocide Convention. South Africa has been joined by Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Comoros, Jordan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Turkey, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, altogether 63 countries. Not one Western country has supported the case, with the USA, UK and Germany explicitly rejecting it and the European Union declining to comment. China, too, has remained mostly silent, though it condemns Israel's conduct in Gaza. Israel, millions of whose people were exterminated in humanity's worst genocide, is now likely to be found guilty of committing a genocide itself. However, any attempt at enforcement of that ruling will no doubt be vetoed by the United States. This is the most important international criminal case to be tried in recent history and South Africa may very well have shown the world the way forward out of our current international impasse. No country in the world can afford to be passive any longer about the even-handed application of international rule of law. As the likelihood of a much larger war in the Middle East grows, the time has come for the world's majority to begin to exercise their power, to say: 'We no longer accept that any single nation can veto the collective will of most of the world. We no longer accept that there is not one law for all.' The Global Majority, united, have the strength to raise such an outcry against the trampling of international justice, unleashing such a devastating international backlash in support of simple fairness, that even a super-power will no longer dare to flout the law. _________ [I would appreciate any comments on this piece.] ________________________________ 1) ANDERSON，Perry (January 2024), Le droit international du plus fort; de Grotius aux Nations Unies, aux Origines de « Deux Poids, Deux Mesures », in Le Monde Diplomatique. 2) 吴根友 （18 April 2011), 王道天下观”的历意蕴与与现今国际关系， 凤凰网文化综合, （The historical connotation of "The King's View of the World" and current international relations, Phoenix Net Cultural Synthesis), online version accessed 13 April 2024 at: https://culture.ifeng.com/huodong/special/wangdaoluntan/shendu/detail_2011_04/18/5813597_1.shtml. Alternatively, KIM, Songmoon (Spring 2010), Mencius on International Relations and the Morality of War: From the Perspective of Confucian "Moralpolitik," in History of Political Thought, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 33-56 (24 pages). 3) Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Sweden and Cyprus. 4) Haaretz | Israel News (4 April 2024), "Doctor at Israeli Field Hospital for Detained Gazans: 'We Are All Complicit in Breaking the Law,'" by Hagar Shezaf and Michael Hauser Tov. 5) Human Rights Watch website, accessed 14 April 2024, referring to events of 10-11 October 2023, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon.

We Are All Here Together and the Time Has Come by William Paton, Beijing 5 May 2024 Our invaluable framework of international law is not being sufficiently applied, and fairly enforced, mainly because of abuse of the veto by just a few states in the United Nations. It is time for the global majority to come together and demand one international law for all states. By forming a new organization to 'veto the veto', the majority of states can seize the moral high ground. Together, they can exert a powerful diplomatic censure on veto-wielders, enough to end such flagrant disregard for fair rule of law on our planet, opening a path to a more peaceful future. Introduction The international laws we have today, though imperfect, provide an invaluable framework with which to stop wars, punish war crimes or genocide, protect human rights, resolve territorial or trade disputes, protect biodiversity and reduce other types of international friction. However, there can be no international rule of law without enforcement, and many of our best international laws today are not being enforced. The greatest weakness of our international legal system is the use of the veto by permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a flaw in the United Nations Charter so great it may lead us to the same fate as the League of Nations, another world war. Wielding of the veto often impedes key parts of our international legal system from functioning. Critically, the United Nations Security Council is often unable to pass a resolution to stop a war, because at least one of the three veto-wielding powers still using it (the USA, Russia and China), does not vote in favour, or refuses thereafter to vote in favour of a further resolution to enforce it. To their great credit, both France and the UK have desisted from using their veto power since 1989. Nonetheless, invasion of another country, crimes of aggression, mass killing of civilians, and other crimes against humanity, usually go unpunished, even if a great majority of members of the Security Council vote to stop these crimes. As many as 14 out of 15 members frequently vote in favour of a resolution, with a single permanent member blocking its adoption. This is offensive. One day soon we must make it impossible and, in time, illegal. Rulings of the International Court of Justice are legally binding on member states, but the Court has no powers of enforcement, beyond the mandatory obligation of members to enforce arrest warrants. Stronger action to follow up on a ruling is a matter for the United Nations Security Council where, once again, a single veto can prevent a ruling’s enforcement. In the 21st century, for just a few states to have the power to unilaterally overrule all other states, is unjust, an unacceptable impediment to further advancement of international rule of law. It is particularly egregious that the same three states (the USA, Russia and China), have all not ratified the treaty that created the International Court of Justice, yet retain the power to veto resolutions on enforcement of its rulings. Since the addition in 1965 of four more seats to the Security Council, states have been unable to agree on any further reform. Formal negotiations are now in their fourth decade, with little progress made. A number of states aspire themselves to attain additional permanent seats on the Council, in addition to the present Permanent Five or ‘P5’, even suggesting they too be given a veto. Competition to join the ranks of states deemed ‘more equal than others’ is not converging towards a consensus, and would only deepen the flaw in the Council, while further dis-empowering the majority of states. Concept While each state has the right to develop its own legal system, with different laws, countries generally accept that there should be one law, nation-wide, with equal treatment for all. Simple fairness demands that at the international level the same principles apply, with one law and legal system, and equal rights, obligations and treatment, for all. Accepted wisdom is that veto-holding states will never willingly relinquish their vetoes, thus advancement of more impartial global justice will remain at an impasse. However, this will only continue as long as the global majority of states continues to accept it. Many even think ending the veto is impossible, but they are wrong, because it must be wrong to think humanity dare not even try to achieve such a basic tenet of justice as equality before the law. Once a particular treaty has come into force, no state – whether they have ratified it or not – should possess the right to decide in which cases that law should or should not be applied and then enforced. Developing countries comprise the majority of the world’s population, and now also the majority of its economic output. Today, combined, they have the strength to stand up for the principle of ‘one law for all’. A formal international organization or treaty could be formed, where members would agree to automatically apply diplomatic sanctions against any power using the veto. Goal As states should not adhere to a new treaty that contradicts the United Nations Charter, the primary goal of One Law for All (‘OLA!’), should be to: Discourage use of the veto in the Security Council and encourage fair application, and impartial enforcement, of international laws among states. Without the veto, future opportunities to apply international law will expand, as the probability of passing any one Security Council Resolution will increase. The aim should be a complete cessation of use of the veto and, in time, amendment of the United Nations Charter to remove it. Method Discouraging use of the veto will include in particular, the application of mandatory, diplomatic sanctions against any state that has used it. For instance, issuance of visas to citizens of the country that used the veto could be suspended for 90 days, with humanitarian exceptions. Ambassadors could also be withdrawn for a symbolic 90 days. Scheduled joint military manoeuvres with a veto-user would also be mandatorily postponed. Measures applied should be designed to inflict the minimum of harm to economies or human health, aiming instead to express maximum moral indignation. While mere diplomatic sanctions may seem too mild to be effective, a sizeable number of states – ideally representing the majority of humanity – will express their profound indignation, together. Such joint action, for instance condemning the blocking of a resolution against a war or war crimes, will provoke massive media coverage, worldwide discussion, and considerable discontent among a vetoing state's own citizens, becoming a serious deterrent. Only when a sizeable minimum number of states have adhered to the treaty should it come into force, perhaps 50 – reminiscent of the day in 1946 when 50 countries’ representatives signed the original UN Charter. Some states in the ‘Global North’ may also decide to join, thus the treaty should be open to all. The Way Forward Many will judge this concept too ambitious or too idealistic. Indeed, it is ambitious and it does pursue an ideal, but a global movement in support of ‘One Law for All’, today has genuine potential to succeed. As it gains momentum it would encourage more governments around the world to believe that they have the support of their peoples, and each other, in taking such a noble stand. Solidarity will also lessen the risk of any one state being singled out for too much retaliation by a state opposed to the movement. The power of moral authority rising not from the pinnacles of power, but rather from the bottom up – from the majority – will resonate strongly. In some countries, a non-governmental organization for One Law for All, might be initially established, to help build support for the cause. Wherever the government is already supportive, this would not be necessary. A small group of states could take the lead to organize the first inter-governmental meeting, on opposition to use of the veto, perhaps in The Hague. In due course, more official meetings would be held at the intergovernmental level to discuss the content of the new treaty. Accession to the treaty by states could then begin, coming into effect once a minimum number of states have ratified it, and one day representing a global majority. That would represent sufficient ethical authority to achieve an historic improvement in international rule of law for all, much improving the course of human history. We are all here together, and the time has come. ___________________________

One Family's Struggle to Survive in Rafah by William Paton, (photos by 'Yousef' (1) ) 25 February 2024 'Yousef' contacted me online, hoping to get his story out. He and his family are living in a camp for the displaced in Rafah, near Gaza's southern border with Egypt. He took the photographs for this story using his cellphone, and used his Egyptian SIM card to send them via the mobile signal from across the border. Yousef, his wife, two daughters and son, aged 16, 13 and 11, fled their home in northern Gaza on foot, as thieves had stolen their car. An accomplished professional, they owned a house he describes as 'cozy.' It has since been bombed and completely destroyed, as was their family's small business, for which they still have a mortgage. After wandering southward on foot through fields of tanks at war, at times expecting to die, they survived, eventually passing through electronic gates erected by the Israeli army and arriving in Rafah. There, Yousef tells me, they were asked to pay US$ 700 dollars for a real tent, rather than just a makeshift shelter. Fortunately, he was able to pay and the family moved into their new 'home'. "Today we are in Rafah after more than five months of war. We are facing three wars. The first war is the Israeli war and the second war is the war of rising prices. The third war is the war of thieves who steal our aid. Our lives are without drinking water. No electricity. No food, no internet. Diseases spread and epidemics spread. Of course, in order to enter the bathroom, you are forced to stand on a long floor without any form of privacy. In short, we are [dying] every minute." This is another family's tent. Most are not very good - inadequate in the cold and rain, when water seeps inside them. There is no family cooking. This tent is a makeshift one, as many are. These ones are made with sheets of plastic stretched over a wooden A-frame. They have no floor. Yousef tells me that the only food he can get now is canned food being sold in the market, where it is more and more expensive. Some cans are now ten times the regular price before the war, and there are no longer any protein sources. When they first arrived, the food supply was a little better. Yousef photographed the aid package above in the market in January. It even included canned beef. But food supply has steadily deteriorated during their two months in the tent. Yousef has lost lost seven kilograms and his wife a similar amount. The health of all family members is deteriorating. Still they are relatively lucky, because Yousef was able to bring some money, so they continue to buy what canned food they can. With aid supplies continued to be choked, aid agencies unable to distribute aid properly or even to prevent the looting of their trucks immediately upon arrival -- and with the family's money dwindling -- their situation is more and more precarious. Many others are already severely hungry and do not know where their next meal is coming from -- tent camps of over a million people on the verge of famine. Aid organizations face difficult choices when what little aid they do manage to get into starving Gaza, is then sometimes stolen and sold. Dire conditions can make normal aid distribution almost impossible, despite the efforts and experience of aid professionals risking their lives in a war zone. The death rate in Gaza is extremely high, with more than 100,000 killed or wounded out of 2.2 million Gazans, in just five months. Israel has now begun to target Rafah, where three quarters of Gaza's population, or more than 1.5 million people, have collected - six or seven times the small city's original population. More than 100 persons are now sometimes killed in a single night in Rafah, by shelling and airstrikes conducted in the dark. Yousef personally knows many doctors who have been killed while working during this war, and many more around him have now fallen ill. However, he reports that there is still a small hospital operating. "You are being treated in a manner devoid of humanity. [It is] strange -- I discovered in Rafah, it was my introduction to, true humiliation." A man (not Yousef), and his daughter. Behind him is one of the better tents. ________________________________ 1) Yousef's name and some of his personal details have been altered to protect his identity as he fears Israeli retribution. I cannot independently verify all the information provided, but I find him highly credible.

The world is suspended in anticipation of an unknown future. An era has ended but we are not quite sure what exactly has ended, and a new era is beginning but we are utterly uncertain what it will be like. by William Paton 22 August 2020 In André Brink’s novel, Rumours of Rain (1978), searing drought and angry unrest in Soweto foreshadow instability before the end of South Africa’s apartheid system of racial segregation. Most were waiting for rain but also feared the storm. Today, the mood worldwide is equally uneasy. The still-worsening Covid-19 pandemic will continue throughout 2021, at least, with untold consequences. Nearly four years of the Trump administration has left the world waiting to see if the American elections in November will bring a) a Democratic Party landslide, b) a still-possible Trump upset or c) something unimaginable in‑between hinging on a contested election result. The growing USA-led crusade against China has also left the world wondering if the rift with China will worsen still. Will it become a more open conflict, perhaps even a hot war, or will cooler heads prevail? Will the anglophone West accept that the dreaded dragon is indeed growing up big and healthy and that it is best to try to cooperate with it on issues like climate change and trade? Many clouds have gathered. From Belarus to Lebanon, Brazil to Venezuela, South Africa to Cameroon, people are in the streets protesting, about government mismanagement of the pandemic, about racism, sexism, corruption, stolen elections or growing inequality. There is a strong consensus that an era has ended but which era was it? Was it the end of post-Soviet uncontested American hegemony since 1991, America leadership since WWII, or of two centuries of Western hegemony? Around the globe we are all wondering about lots of things. Should I try to stock up on rice or wheat flour? Will my currency crash? Should I try to buy a little gold? How will I make a living? When can the children go back to school? Can we afford health care? Will we have to move? The most important event of the year – the COP 26 or UN climate change meeting in Scotland, intended to pledge new emissions reductions targets – was postponed. Covid‑19’s millions of deaths are bringing the world a gruesome discount on our harmful emissions. However, this will also make recent emissions look artificially lower, hiding the real trend. This may be the most serious consequence of the pandemic – missing civilization’s final wake up call. Will governments seize this chance to just roll over and ‘hit the snooze button’ for another five years in favour of an unsustainable ‘economic recovery’? Taken all together, this ominous gathering of clouds represents an appalling lack of global governance. We knew the Security Council was powerless to face a hostile superpower but we did not know it would fail to face a pandemic. We did not expect the World Trade Organization to fumble into a neutered state during a trade war. We did not expect a frontal assault on the World Health Organization during a pandemic. We did not expect the endless taunting of Iran. We did not expect a global decline in respect for truth. So, will it be a shower or a hurricane? Will we bask in its sunny aftermath or sob among the wreckage? None of us know and few of us feel that we can influence the outcomes much. But we are all here waiting … 7.8 billion of us … waiting for rain. ____________________ Dr William M. Paton was leader of the United Nations in Republic of Congo and Tajikistan; Director of Country Programmes worldwide for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Geneva); and Deputy Director General of the International Development Law Organization (Rome). He has also worked for the UN’s International Organization of Migration and the Chinese Academy of Science. He now lives in Beijing. Comments are welcome sent to billpaton@qq.com or WeChat / WhatsApp: bmpaton.

“Human history is … marked from time to time by completely avoidable events which I like to call ‘pink flamingos’. Pink flamingos are tragedies caused by nonsensical behaviour, often by a Head of State.” by William Paton 7 April 2020 International relations during this pandemic are as scary as the virus. While there have been many voices of reason speaking out it is not clear they will prevail. Instead, there is a real risk that continuing silliness by a few may have unforeseen and tragic consequences. To begin with, Donald Trump tried repeatedly to blame China for the virus. The USA even tried to get the G7 to agree to call it the ‘Wuhan Virus’. As a result, there was no G7 Joint Statement. China too, fell briefly into the trap when a senior official suggested the virus had been brought to Wuhan by USA soldiers during the Military Games held there in October 2019. It became clear that China had efficiently controlled their epidemic. On the other hand, the USA, UK, Italy, Spain and others had less success, leading to higher numbers of deaths than in China. Boris Johnson led a new attack from his sickbed: China must be lying about the numbers, he said, which must be up to 40 times higher than stated. The ­idea was that if China’s numbers were higher, then the UK’s high numbers would look better. PM Johnson had deliberately delayed social distancing in the UK. As late as 25 March, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro was still dismissing the pandemic as ‘just a sniffle’ and actively trying to stop social distancing. By April Fool’s Day a prominent USA Senator was clamouring that China must pay compensation to the USA， demanding that China ‘at least’ forgive the USA’s trillion-dollar debt. In early April, the USA was accused of pirating a shipment of 200,000 masks in transit to the German police. The US company, 3M, that makes the masks was ordered to divert the shipment to the USA. President Trump said: “We need these items immediately for domestic use. We have to have them.” France then also complained that the USA was trying to divert their shipments by offering to pay suppliers triple or quadruple to reroute supplies that they had ordered. China, by now recovering from the pandemic, has been providing a helping hand, shipping medical supplies to more than 80 countries around the world. This was promptly denounced by a few more American politicians and media figures as a ‘plot to take advantage of the situation’, although it was left unclear exactly how this was supposed to unfairly benefit China. The quality of Chinese medical supplies was disparaged while several Western countries took China’s needed donations but declined to thank China publicly. Of course, many countries and their leaders have behaved well. Japan and Korea not only managed to control the fast spread of the virus quite efficiently but also maintained good regional cooperation. Italy, Croatia, France and Spain, among others, have cooperated with any other country willing. Under Angela Merkel’s steady leadership, Germany stayed out of the rhetorical exchange and focused on domestic crisis management. Rwanda was the first country in Africa to go into lock down. Many sensible leaders have also made eloquent calls for international cooperation against this common enemy. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for a global ceasefire in the world’s various wars while we fight the virus instead of each other. However, to date there is no real systematic international cooperation against the pandemic and it is not clear that cooler heads will prevail. Is a ‘Pink Flamingo’ next? The pandemic is, arguably, a ‘black swan’ event as Nassim Taleb dubbed them in his well-known book. A black swan is a rare and unexpected event with unforeseen consequences. Many would argue that this pandemic is instead one of Michelle Wucker’s ‘grey rhinos’: A grey rhino is a huge known risk that is ignored until it is too late. We knew that another pandemic would come, sooner or later. Human history is also marked from time to time by completely avoidable events which I like to call ‘pink flamingos’. Pink flamingos are tragedies caused by nonsensical behaviour, often by a Head of State. The most famous pink flamingo event is probably the ‘Football War’ in 1969. El Salvadorians became enraged over a lost football match and invaded neighbouring Honduras, the winner. Thousands were killed and displaced. In 1925, in ‘The War of the Stray Dog’, Greece invaded Bulgaria after a man was shot to death at the border while chasing his runaway dog. Japan’s attack on the USA in 1939 can also be counted as a bright pink flamingo. At the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the USA economy was the largest in the world while Japan’s economy was only the world’s seventh largest, nominally less than one tenth the size of the USA’s. How did they expect to win? George Bush Jr.’s insistence on invading Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction that did not exist was a flaming pink flamingo – a severe delusion that resulted in civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Reasonable people want the world to put their differences aside and come together to combat Covid-19. There is much that we can gain from mutual collaboration. For instance, scarce respirators could be moved from country to country as the pandemic peaks in different places at different times. But we are not yet starting to cooperate better. Instead, it seems that some governments are continuing to undermine international cooperation, determined to please their domestic audiences. More such folly may yet cause another ‘pink flamingo’ – a second, simultaneous and utterly unprovoked disaster that could be worse than the pandemic itself. Dr William M. Paton, a Canadian, was leader of the United Nations in Republic of Congo, Tajikistan and Somalia; Director of Country Programmes (worldwide) of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and Deputy Director General of the International Development Law Organization. He now lives in Beijing. Comments are welcome sent to billpaton@qq.com , on WeChat bmpaton or WhatsApp bmpaton .

What was a Canadian warship doing 90 km off the Chinese coasts? The author, a Canadian, muses over his breakfast in Beijing about why a rusty old Canadian frigate had obediently followed a US destroyer through the Taiwan Strait, off the coasts of the country with the world's largest navy. by William Paton, Beijing 5 June 2023 I grew up in Canada, in a small town not so far from Montreal. When I was 29, I left Canada on a two-year contract to work in Botswana. Now I'm 67 and I still haven't gone back to Canada to live. The joke is that 'I got lost'. But I was surprised recently to see that Montreal itself had gotten lost! The HSMC Montreal -- a Canadian warship -- had sailed out of Halifax Harbour in eastern Canada and somehow ended up in the Taiwan Strait on the opposite side of the globe! (See map.) The initial reaction at our Beijing breakfast table was a gale of laughter. The thought of the Canadian navy foolishly trying to police the world, off the coasts of the country with the world's largest navy, seemed hilarious! The ferocious beaver was baring its chisel teeth at the dragon! Map showing the Taiwan Strait and Halifax Harbour However, the mood sobered as we remembered that provocations in a potential conflict zone are profoundly serious. Canada had done this before, just last year, but this time they had done so while China and Canada's Ministers of Defense were in a meeting in Singapore precisely to discuss security, and their heads of intelligence were also together in a rare conclave of spooks. Crafted press releases of the USA and Canada stressed how their adventure was 'routine' and designed to 'protect freedom of navigation under international law'. Of course, they criticized the Chinese navy for 'recklessly' sailing too near in front of their passage. This has become a standard dramatic element in such stories, whether about fighter planes or warships near China. More important is what was left out. For instance, the rusty, 31-year-old Canadian frigate was obediently following the USA -- a country that itself refuses to agree to The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS,1982). Yes, that's right! The power who so provocatively 'defends' the Law of the Sea off China's coast refuses itself to ratify it. The US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee has repeatedly made it clear that they find UNCLOS not in US interests. Canada only finally agreed to the Law in 2003, far later than China. Also left out is that navigation is already quite free in the Taiwan Strait and has been since the end of the Korean War. By the time you read this at least another 100 ships will have passed freely through the Strait, just as they always do, but for trade or regular passage, not for war. This highly hypocritical, cynical behaviour (and lying), may be scarily frequent but it is decidedly not routine and sane nations do not indulge in it. China would never sail one of its own ships halfway across the world just to skirt the coast of Vancouver or Nova Scotia. Nor will you see a Chinese destroyer or aircraft carrier sailing merrily through the channel that separates Miami from Havana 'just to keep it open'. Because that would be silly. That would be provocative and risky. That might even spark a war. _____________