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

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

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

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

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

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

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.