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

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

The US Congress passed a law on 29 March 2023 entitled the ‘China is Not a Developing Country Act'. The law sets targets for US representatives to pressure international organizations to change their rules to take away China's developing country status. The author explains the current rules for categorizing countries as 'developed' or 'developing' and then uses photographs rather than words to let viewers judge for themselves if China still looks like a developing country. by William Paton, Beijing 3 April 2023 The United States Congress voted unanimously on 29 March to pass the ‘PRC is Not a Developing Country Act' (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1107/text). This US law calls for international organizations and treaties to change China's status from a 'developing country' to a 'developed country'. It puts pressure on US representatives in such organizations to lobby hard for a rule change specifically to alter China's status. This breaks decades-old multilateral rules. The World Bank classifies countries with a per capita gross national income of $12,695 or above in 2021 at market rates as high-income or 'developed', in accordance with its statutes. China's GNI per capita in 2021 was $11,880 according to the Bank, thus it remained a 'developing country' (GNI is Gross National Income, or GDP plus foreign income). The USA's GNI per capita in 2021 was $70,480 and Switzerland's $90,600. As you can see, China's GNI per capita is now quite close to the upper limit and they will become a 'developed country' within a few years. The World Bank and its rules are largely an American creation. The Bank is located in Washington and has always been headed by an American. The Bank's staff spend far more time dealing with American demands than they spend on any other country's business. The US has always nominated a single candidate to become the Bank's head. The subsequent President of the United States has repeatedly forced out the incumbent early in order to replace him with his own appointee. When a country reaches a level equal to about 1/6th of the USA's GNI per capita, it is promoted to 'developed' and must thereafter compete with the USA and other 'developed countries' equally. Incredibly, no change to the statutes of the World Bank can be made without the American government's approval. The USA is the only country with this power. When an increase in Japan's voting power would have undermined the US veto ten years ago, Washington simply changed the formula. There have been no changes in voting rights since and, indeed, the USA would have to approve any such changes. China has about 5% of voting rights at the Bank's main lending arm while its GDP accounts for 19% of the world economy. The United States today has 16% of the votes at the Bank's lending arm, thus of course the Bank's new rule now requires at least 85% of the vote to make a change. Eighty-five percent is a unique new 'democratic' principle specifically designed to maintain USA control. The other six G7 nations, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, have a combined 25% of Bank voting rights despite their combined GDP being smaller than China's. China has long wanted to contribute more capital to the World Bank, but the Western countries, led by the United States refuse, not wishing it to thereby increase its voting rights. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), USA influence has also been by far the greatest of any nation. In the WTO system, the advantage of being a developing country is mainly in longer 'transition periods.' This gives companies in developing countries more time to prepare to face global competition. Developing countries have reduced voting rights in the WTO and little real power. Indeed, in contrast to the US narrative, developing countries face considerable, asymmetrical barriers to many of their exports, dating back to the founding years of the Organization. The agenda of the WTO, the implementation of its agreements, and the much-praised dispute settlement system all serve to advance the interests of developed countries, sidelining those of the developing countries.(1) In addition, the degree of preferential or differential treatment for developing countries has gone into a steep decline for over a decade now, further tilting the trading field in favour of the USA and its allies.(2) China has lowered its tariffs more than required by the WTO and continues to do so. This policy is motivated by the desire to lower the cost of imports for its consumers, as well as to expose its firms to foreign competition. Historically, the USA maintained high tariffs until its GNI per capita reached more than 300% of China's GNI per capita today, in real terms. Only in the Clinton era did this finally change, because a bi-partisan consensus emerged that freer trade helped American corporations access foreign factories and markets. Like most American politics these days, the Act defies all reason. Does the USA really wish to force its embarrassed representatives to bang on the table and insist that the US government can change the rules of the 'rules-based international order', once again, in what it believes is its own favour? Is it good strategy to challenge one’s own system? Does it even make sense when China will soon graduate to developed country status anyway? Is this leadership? The Act, however, makes perfect sense because it plays mainly to domestic political opinion. The US electorate has long since bought the narrative that China is taking advantage of the poor, suffering United States. Such false narratives about China (see Stephen Roach's latest book, Accidental Conflict: American, China and the Clash of False Narratives), have become a huge industry. Detached from reality, the stories relentlessly feed the polls and coffers of the loudest, most sinophobic politicians and attract huge advertising revenues to most media outlets. Over the last two months, February and March 2023, I have been cycling several times per week in the hills of southern Yunnan province where my spouse and I spend winter. I sometimes stop to take photographs and a few of these photos are shown below. I believe that these pictures show a China that is still a developing country, 3,000 kilometers away from the glitter of Shanghai. I leave it to readers to judge for themselves. ____ (1) ‘WTO and Developing Countries’ (1998), Institute for Policy Studies, Washington -- https://ips-dc.org/wto_and_developing_countries/). (2) Clara Weinhardt & Till Schöfer (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.