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

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

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

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

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

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

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.