USA is full of evil and full of hypocrisy throughout its history. It is through its hypocrisy in dealing with the various self-governing Native American Indian tribes and through insidious plots, intrigues , subterfuge and treason that USA is able to extend its original territory of about Six Hundred Thousand Square miles of the thirteen states during the year of Independence from England in July 4th 1775, to the present day of Three million Seven Hundred Thousand Square miles , all at the expense of the native American Indians and the Mexicans. ( USA through brute military might forcefully and illegally acquired one milliom six hundred and fifty thousand square miles of land from Mexico in the years between 1840s to 1890s . It had also genocided not less than eighty-five million native American Indians in all. ) In 1905 USA deposed the queen of Hawaii and conquered Hawaii, after its army brutally brought down the government of the queen of Hawaii with the slaughter of more than two hundred thousand of the patriotic Hawaiian resistant fighters USA always twist international laws, dishonour treaties and twist human rights to suit its own agenda. Below is an article from China Daily on the hypocrisy of USA regarding the South China Sea issue and the comments from its readers.
US history of hypocrisy looms over South China Sea arbitration
By Zhu Junqing Source:Xinhua Published: 2016-7-10 19:08:01
The US-led Western countries have been good at maximizing their private interests and committing illegal acts through implementing double standards under the cover of international law and regulations.
The recently-released British Iraq War Inquiry Report found out that there was "no imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein in March 2003, who the US claimed possessed weapons of mass destruction that have still not been found to this day.
Though the report sidestepped defining the nature of the war, the US-led invasion of Iraq is widely considered to have been an illegal and unjust war that circumnavigated the United Nations (UN) and overturned a sovereign nation by a unilateral military action.
Such behavior should be criticized, condemned and eliminated as international law and the UN authority should never be toyed with and peace and stability should never be sacrificed to serve some groups' interests.
The US has always been hypocritical when talking about international law. The global superpower is skilled at intentionally applying and misinterpreting international law and norms to attack its "rivals," while it gives itself the right to choose whether or not to resort to international law.
Examples abound. In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled that the US had violated international law by supporting the Contras rebels against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. However, the US refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, leading to its termination. Recently, Washington used international law as a "knife" to attack Russia over the Ukraine crisis.
In the South China Sea dispute, the US not only instigated the Philippines to submit an arbitration application to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, but at the same time it also smeared China's law-abiding image and sowed discord between China and its neighbors.
China has reiterated that the arbitration goes against international law for the following reasons.
The Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration violates its agreement with China to resolve any dispute through bilateral negotiations; the unilateral initiation violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); the Philippines' unilateral act violated the right that China enjoys as a party to the UNCLOS to seek dispute settlements of its own choosing, and undermined the UNCLOS' authority and integrity; the Arbitral Tribunal has violated the UNCLOS and abused its power by hearing the case.
Obviously, the US, a self-proclaimed "international attorney," is an expert in jurisprudence, but to maintain its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, Washington chose to ignore facts and engage in mud-slinging against China.
It is advisable for Washington to readjust its attitude toward China, as China will firmly safeguard its own territorial sovereignty and legitimate maritime rights as well as peace and stability in the South China Sea.
The author is a writer with the Xinhua News Agency. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Posted by Southernglory1
Below are some comments from netizens of China Daily
Michiko
When one tends to see a country as individual, USA is definitely a teenage psychopath who's robbing and killing and lying all over
French philosopher Clotaire Rapallie says: "These levels (i.e. imprints have to happen as a child) are very different from one culture to another. Some cultures are very reptilian, which means very basic instinct. American culture is a very basic instinct: I want to be reached now; let's do it. There's a bias for action. Just now, America is very adolescent when other cultures are more cortex, very control, control, control." (His interview with PBS in 2004.)
Michiko Ray
Hillary Clinton kind of awful woman is really "American" in this definition, except her age.
So having her as President is the best match to America.
FACTS: Since the sixties the US has sanctioned Cuba for daring to throw out Bautista and his US gangsters and repel the US sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion there by humiliating America, something it can't forgive.
The Us invaded Vietnam at a cost of 58 thousand US soldiers and 3.5 million Vietnamese lives, left in disgrace leaving a destroyed society behind.
Invaded Afghanistan creating a dysfunctional society after 13 years with the Taliban again encroaching
The us invaded Iraq on the basis of a lie creating a completely dysfunctional society after the deaths of over a million and eventually leading to the rise of Isis.
The US and the west in general sponsoring and helping rebels including Neo Nazis in Ukraine to topple
a democratically elected government killing hundreds and then trying to shift the blame on Russia when the Crimean parliament allowed a vote by the population as to whether or not it wanted to rejoin Russia. The results were to rejoin Russia (91%) PS: there was no loss of life just a civilised transition. America howled it was illegal. Wow!!
Their only success seems to be their invasion of Panama to capture the drug runner Manuel Noriega.It was a near thing but the Americans persevered and finally got him: all 5 ft.4 in. of him.
Now the west is bombing Iraq and Syria without UN authority and is again on a killing spree. And we wonder
why these people hate the west?
The US has done nothing but screw up one country after another and has learned nothing except how to kill and to be a bully. They do the same thing over and over. Who or what is in charge? Anyone?
cherrysan
The American lawyers and politicians depend on dumb silly Asians who buy their lies. They cleverly package white lies, make deliberate omissions of their own violation of international law. Only foolish idiot Asians buy US lies. This show many of them are still third world mentality with no brains even as they improve their economic status. When people like Hillary talk of Rule of Law, she mean it does not apply to US but only to others.
China should sue PCA for breaking international laws in its dealing in SCS and intruding without all parties consent and for not doing due diligence and for acting In an interested and biased way if provisions are there in icj.
cherrysan
Fool! It will be a Slap Down for PH. If PCA is fair, it will kick the complaint PH filed within her 200 NM EEZ to the ICJ for further deliberation. Remember, Land Over Sea mantra. This is how it works in international law where maritime law depends on land sovereignty settlement First. As for Nine Dash Line, totally kicked out as PCA will find PH have no locus standee.
Avatar
BasicRules
China will soon sue PCA for intruding and breaking international laws and acting in an interested and biased manner.
7/11/2016
Singapore does not take sides in foreign policy – Chan Chun Sing
Speaking to Chinese
youth in Beijing. ST 7 Jul, Chan Chun Sing told his Chinese audience that
Singapore does not take sides in foreign policy. In recent comments by
govt officials, it is very difficult to believe how this is the case when the
position was so clearly pro USA and anti China. At one point a diplomat had to
retracted his anti China comment by claiming it to be a personal comment and
not speaking in an official capacity to represent the Singapore govt’s
view. Clearly the personal view was anti China.
The recent China Asean Foreign Minister Meeting in Kunming also created doubts as to the position of Singapore, whether it is neutral or anti China. Vivian Balakrishnan was the co chairman of the Meeting but chose to be absence when a closing comment was to be delivered by the two Chairman. What did his absence got to say about the neutrality of Singapore? And in the same Meeting, an anti China joint statement was issued by Malaysia for obvious reason only to retrieve the statement when Cambodia protested.
The recent China Asean Foreign Minister Meeting in Kunming also created doubts as to the position of Singapore, whether it is neutral or anti China. Vivian Balakrishnan was the co chairman of the Meeting but chose to be absence when a closing comment was to be delivered by the two Chairman. What did his absence got to say about the neutrality of Singapore? And in the same Meeting, an anti China joint statement was issued by Malaysia for obvious reason only to retrieve the statement when Cambodia protested.
What about the recent
comments by the Ambassador at Large, Bilahari Kausikan in Japan and in his
lectures at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy? They were anything but
friendly to China. They were anything but neutral. Was he talking in his
private capacity or as a spokesman for the Singapore govt? If the latter, his
view must be the official position of the govt ie, not neutral but pro
American.
Simon Tay has this to
add about what Bilahari said in his pro American public lectures about Trojan
Horses in Asean. Simon said that while we ridiculed countries becoming Trojan
Horses, we shall not be seen to be little USAs. These are not the exact words
used by Simon, but the intent is similar. Asean states must not become the
cronies of the USA while pointing the fingers at other countries, calling
others as Trojan Horses. Isn't this the same, that some Asean countries are the
Trojan Horses of the Americans too?
Is this the position of
the Singapore govt? Does Chan Chun Sing know about it? Is Chan Chun Sing aware
of the govt’s position or is he not? Or is Chan Chun Sing’s position the
position of the Singapore govt and Bilahari’s position is not? Are they the
same Singapore govt's position on relations with China and the USA?
Which is which, cannot be both are the govt’s position when they are conflicting views? How would these views make of Chan Chun Sing’s official statement that Singapore does not take sides in foreign policies?
Which is which, cannot be both are the govt’s position when they are conflicting views? How would these views make of Chan Chun Sing’s official statement that Singapore does not take sides in foreign policies?
An Obama joke
The world news
reported that Obama said the America America
While Obama continues
with his sick joke that the black man that killed 5 white policemen was a lone
wolf, more threats were received against the white policemen. The white
policemen are now hiding behind barricades in the police stations as they are
now the targets of black hate and anger.
For centuries they have been bullying the blacks and think they can
continue to do so and get away with it. Now the blacks are fighting back. They are hunting for the white policemen, the
hunter being the hunted.
The white policemen
are now facing a double whammy, the wrath of the blacks and the terrorist
attacks from IS. And while they are
fearing for their lives, and hiding inside the police quarters, who is there to
patrol the streets and guard the safety of the Americans, installations and
soft targets?
Obama should tell the
white policemen to have no fear and to continue to walk the streets and
continue to do their shootings of the blacks like it is their God damn right to
do so.
Is Obama serious? Or
is he cracking a sick joke as President of the USA America
Hillary was pronounced by the FBI as a very
careless person, and now running for Presidency. Hope she would not be careless enough to
start World War 3. What would the FBI
said of Obama, a joker that goes around starting wars and honoured with a Nobel
Peace Prize? The violent white Americans at home and around the world would be
met with violence. They cannot keep on killing people at will and at their
fancy. The blacks at home and the rest of the world will hit back.
7/10/2016
THAAD – The American White Lie
The
Americans have successfully coerced the South Koreans to deploy the THAAD
missile system in South Korea against the latter’s objection and
oppositions from China and Russia. The deployment of THAAD increases
the risk of war to all the parties concerned and is detrimental to their
national interests except for the Americans. Every one of these countries stands
to lose other than the Americans. THAAD’s presence in South Korea only infuriates the North Koreans
as well as China and Russia. These countries would now come
within the range of American medium range missile attacks. How can it be safer
and for peace when these countries would no longer trust the American’s intent
and would review all their agreements with the Americans to counter this new
threat?
To the
South Koreans, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. The threat of
a North Korean attack is an American White Lie that has been propounded daily
for the last 60 plus years by the Americans to justify the American military
presence in South Korea and to keep the South Koreans as a
semi American colony in East Asia after Japan.
The North Koreans would never attack the South unless they are really
insane, and would commit a national suicide for the whole of North Korea. The overwhelming superiority of
the American military power could see to the destruction of the whole of North Korea within hours without the need to
send in a single American soldier into the North. This kind of military
superiority of the Americans is enough deterrence to keep any country from
attacking South Korea or starting a war against the
Americans or their allies. There is no threat of a North Korean invasion of the
South. Stop the White Lie.
The
pathetic thing is that because of this White Lie, the hapless South Koreans
would forever be a semi colony of the American Empire. The threat to South
Korean independence is the American presence. And not only that, the South
Koreans would have to pay billions for this THAAD system that they did not
want, did not ask for it, did not want to pay for it, and the system does not
serve their national and security interests but the interests of the American
Empire. The South Koreans simply have to go along and pay for it, to live with
the American White Lie and to entrench the American colonization of their
country.
This new
development will change the status quo in East Asia. China and Russia could adopt the same tough stand
like the Americans did when the Russians were deploying missiles in Cuba. Would China and Russia see this threat serious enough,
like the Americans in the 1960s, and mount a naval blockage of South Korea to prevent the Americans from
bringing in this offensive military system? Should they decide to do so, the
world would be pushed to the brink of a nuclear war between the Americans on
one side and the Chinese and the Russians on the other.
This event
is just starting to take shape and China and Russia have yet to develop a coherent
defensive position. They must be busily meeting behind closed doors to address
this hostile move by the Americans, and the decision could be just as intense
and robust in reaction to this upsetting and destabilizing American military
manouvre. Not taking any strong counter actions by the Chinese and the Russians
is unacceptable.
Tension
will mount and will be many times more serious than in the South China Sea or in Eastern Europe.
The Chinese and the Russians cannot afford to allow the Americans to put
such an offensive military system on their doorsteps. They are likely to react violently
to test the resolve of all parties in this new crisis. It is a major crisis in
the making in the same mould as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The first
major change in China’ policy will be to close rank with
the North Koreans and tell the Americans to fuck off with their White Lie and
sanctions against North Korea. North Korea will be the immediate beneficiary
of this policy shift and the loser would be South Korea. They would lose the China market. China and Russia would openly support more nuclear
tests from the North Koreans and stand steadfastly behind them as the North
Koreans’ right to self defence.
The most
pathetic nation caught in the American created storm is South Korea. It is now just a sacrificial chess
piece of the American Empire, have no say and be squeezed in all angles, losing
national sovereignty, national pride and also have to pay financially to become
the colony of the American Empire.
The weapons
producers in the US must be partying themselves crazy
for the money they are making from the hapless South Koreans.
7/09/2016
Tony Blair – The world’s worst terrorist
‘There is one terrorist in this world that the world needs to be aware of, and his name is Tony Blair, the world’s worst terrorist.’ Said Sarah O’Conner in a press conference reported by Agence France Presse. Her brother Bob was killed in Iraq in 2005 when Tony Blair ordered the invasion Iraq with British troops.
The war killed 179 British troops, 4,500 American personnel and 150,000 Iraqis, not counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wounded, the millions displaced, the economy destroyed and a country at war. In an inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot, it condemned Tony Blair for leading Britain to war based on a lie fabricated by the intelligence community.
The families of dead British soldiers are pondering on the option of suing the British govt and charging Tony Blair for war crimes. All these are happening amidst more terrorist attacks by IS during Ramadan. And a Syrian was quoted why there were no outrage in these latest attacks with 40 people killed in Istanbul alone. Wow, 40 people killed you want a world outrage? Why not ask why no outrage when more than 150,000 Iraqis were killed by the world’s worst terrorist in Tony Blair?
Actually Sarah O’Conner was wrong. Tony Blair was not the world’s worst terrorist. He was second. The worst terrorist is none other than George Bush Jr, the President of the USA, that schemed the whole invasion of Iraq with the murder of President Saddam Hussein as war collateral.
Why are the two worst terrorists still not charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Cannot, they are above the law, they are Americans and British. The people they killed are not humans but Iraqis. It is ok to kill the Iraqis.
How many people did the IS terrorists killed so far? 100, 500, 1,000? How do these numbers compare to the 150,000 killed in Iraq?
Where are the stupid people defending the Americans and the British as the good people, the people good enough to be world policemen, good enough to start wars everywhere and still regarded as the good people?
When would these two mass murderers of Arabs, Muslims, Americans and British boys and girls be charged for war crimes and put behind bars?
7/08/2016
South China Sea issue must cool down
The South China Sea issue can only be settled correctly and justifiably if every party involved make a sincere effort and without prejudice to understand the true perspective of the issue both from the historical and legal point of view. Third parties not involved should not muddle the waters and create trouble for their own insidious agenda. Below is a speech by Dai Bingguo to explain and clarify the true perspective of the South China Sea issues.
South China Sea issue must cool down
Source:Globaltimes.cn Published: 2016-7-6 16:35:00
The following is the full text(minus pleasantries and unrelated comments) of a speech delivered by former State councilor Dai Bingguo at China-US Dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks on Tuesday in Washington.
I am delighted to attend the China-US dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks jointly organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University...
For a period of time, the South China Sea which used to be a rather quiet place has become not so quiet. The situation there has heated up to a quite unusual degree, drawing extensive international attention. What has really happened there? I noticed that reports and comments on this issue tend to take a static view from a certain angle, and thus have not shown the full picture of the South China Sea issue. In my view, to study an international hot spot issue, it is necessary to seek truth from facts by fully considering the relevant international background, tracing the historical development, and thoroughly reviewing how the concerned parties have interacted on this issue. Only in this way can one see the whole picture, tell right from wrong and draw the right conclusion. In this vein, I would like to focus my speech on the historical facts of the South China Sea issue and China's policy on this issue. And I will endeavor to view and handle the South China Sea issue from the perspective of China-US relations and explore ways to genuinely cool down this issue and restore calm to this part of the world.
1.Nansha Islands are China's Integral Territory
Historical materials of China and many western countries corroborate the fact that it was the Chinese people who were the first to discover, name, develop and administer the islands in South China Sea, and that the Chinese government was the first to peacefully and effectively exercise continuous sovereign jurisdiction on South China Sea islands. During the Second World War, Japan illegally invaded and occupied China's South China Sea islands, which were restored to China after the war. Pursuant to Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which were cornerstones of the post-war international order, Japan shall return the stolen Chinese territory to China. Following the end of the war, China restored Taiwan, Penghu Islands, Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands illegally occupied by Japan.
Many of you were probably not aware of this, but China's actions to restore the islands were supported by General Douglas McArthur. China's military and government personnel were ferried by US-provided military vessels to Xisha and Nansha Islands to hold the restoration ceremony. After that, the US filed applications to Chinese authorities on Taiwan to conduct geodetic survey in some of Nansha Islands on many occasions.
All this shows that the return of Nansha Islands to China is part of the post-war international order and relevant territorial arrangements. For a long time since the end of the War, the US has recognized and in reality respected China's sovereignty over Nansha Islands. China's sovereignty over South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other international law. To be blunt, when the US states today that it does not take a position on issues of territory, it actually amounts to back-peddling and defiance of the post-war international order, which the US itself has participated in building.
There are sufficient grounds to state that on the South China Sea issue, China is completely at the receiving end of encroachments. For a long time, the South China Sea had remained trouble free and calm. But since the 1970s, the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries have illegally occupied 42 islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands by force, which gave rise to disputes over territory in these islands and reefs. Over several decades, the Philippines and Vietnam carried out large scale construction and deployed armaments on them and continued to take provocative actions at sea. These illegal occupations and provocations are violations of international law and the UN Charter, and should be universally condemned. The world can see that on the South China Sea issue, China is by no means a wrong-doer or trouble maker, but rather a victim. According to international law, China has every right to self preservation and self-defense. It possesses the ability to recover the above-mentioned islands and reefs. However, in the interest of regional peace and stability, China has all along exercised enormous restraint, and sought peaceful settlement through negotiations. In recent years, China has taken actions only as compelled response at a minimal level to unbridled encroachments by certain countries on China's rights and interests. Stand in China's shoes for a moment, if it was the US who was challenged with such provocation, it would have long resorted to force to recover the illegally occupied islands and reefs.
2. China remains committed to peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations with countries directly concerned.
The Chinese government was the first to propose and has consistently followed the position of "shelving disputes and pursuing common development." Its consistent position on the South China Sea issue includes the following three elements:
--Disputes should be settled peacefully through negotiation and consultation, and managed through rules, norms and operating mechanisms;
--Shared interests should be expanded through joint development and cooperation;
--Freedom of navigation and overflight should be upheld and peace and stability maintained.
These are both China's basic policies and solemn pledges on the South China Sea issue. For the past several decades, the South China Sea region has maintained stability on the whole, and the relevant disputes have been kept under control. Southeast Asia has been able to achieve robust growth, and is seen as an example of peace, stability and prosperity and a magnet of cooperation in the eyes of many countries and regions. This is a great contribution China and its neighbors have made to the international community.
As the biggest coastal country of the South China Sea and a country dedicated to peaceful development, China sees peace and stability of the South China Sea as bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation. Despite the negative impact of factors both within and outside the region, China has not lost confidence and will stick to its policy of seeking peaceful settlement through bilateral negotiation and consultation, for the following reasons.
First, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation best reflects adherence to international law and the basic norms of international relations. According to the UN Charter and the Declaration on
Principles of International Law, negotiation is the primary way for peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UNCLOS stipulates that countries concerned should settle maritime delimitation disputes through negotiations as the first recourse, and China and ASEAN countries also made such solemn commitment in the DOC. The fact is, China has benefited from the existing international order, and has firmly observed and upheld such order. China will continue to honor its due obligations, earnestly fulfill international and regional responsibilities, uphold the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS and other international law, and safeguard the rule of law.
Second, to settle disputes peacefully and through negotiations has been a successful practice of China in implementing international rule of law. Back in the 1950s, China has proposed addressing historical boundary issues through consultation under the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. In the following decades, China has resolved its boundary questions with 12 out of 14 land neighbors through negotiations. They have surveyed and demarcated around 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, about 90% of China's land boundary. China and Vietnam have delimited maritime boundary at the Beibu Gulf through negotiation. Of all boundary talks, those between China and Russia lasted for over 40 years, between China and Vietnam on land boundary over 30 years, and on Beibu Gulf over 20 years. I personally have participated in some of the boundary talks, and I believe that peaceful negotiations can best reflect countries' own will and sovereign equality and have unique strength and efficacy in addressing complex territorial and maritime disputes. There is no reason why disputes in the South China Sea cannot be resolved through peaceful negotiations.
Third, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation is the only viable way to manage and resolve the South China Sea issue. The truth is, the parties concerned in the South China Sea issue have all along been working in this direction, which is also a clear provision in the DOC. The parties have established mature and effective mechanisms to this end, and the COC consultation has been making notable progress.
Despite all this, the Philippines went on a pervert course of initiating arbitration without prior consultation with China. This is nothing but an act of imposition by the Philippines on China, and a culmination of the Philippines' actions to advance its illegal claims. The truth behind the arbitration case is political intrigue, whereby certain countries have been deliberately provoking problems and stirring up tensions, eager to see turbulence in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. By making a so called "award", it has willfully expanded its power, which is against the UNCLOS and is null and void.
By taking a position of not participating in or accepting the arbitration, China is upholding its own rights and interests under international law and safeguarding the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS. We hope that the US side will take an objective and fair approach regarding the arbitration, rather than criticizing China for upholding the UNCLOS from the position of a non-state party. The final award of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper. China suffered enough from hegemonism, power politics and bullying by Western Powers since modern times. The Versailles peace conference at the end of World War I forced a sold-out of Shandong Province. The Lyton Commission, sent by the League of Nations when Japan invaded China's northeast provinces, only served to justify Japan's invasion. Even the US-led negotiations on San Francisco Peace Treaty excluded China. These episodes are still vivid in our memory. That is why China will grip its own future on issues of territorial sovereignty, and will never accept any solution imposed by a third party.
3. The situation in the South China Sea must cool down.
The temperature of the South China Sea is now high enough. Some people even clamored for "fight tonight". If such momentum went unchecked, accidents could happen and the South China Sea might sink into chaos and so might the entire Asia. Should that happen, it will be countries around the South China Sea, the Asian countries and even the US itself that will suffer. We must not let this happen, and not allow Asia to become another West Asia and North Africa. Anyone intent on fueling the flames and unleashing disastrous outcomes will be held accountable by history.
Cooling down temperatures in the South China Sea requires concrete efforts by all countries concerned.
First, the urgent priority is to stop the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an "award", no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation. And the Philippines must be dissuaded from making any further provocation. Otherwise, China would not sit idle.
Second, China and the US have neither disputes over even one inch of territory nor fundamental clash of interests in the South China Sea. The South China Sea issue should not be allowed to define China-US relations.
Rather, this issue should be put in perspective against larger bilateral relations and be transformed into an area of cooperation rather than arena for confrontation. We must forestall undue disruptions or damages to the overall China-US relations as a result of differences over this issue. The people of China and the US will not forgive us, if we let the basically sound China-US relations cultivated by both sides over the past forty years be ruined by misjudgment and mishandling over this issue.
I have made China's position and views clear. Let me conclude with a few more personal observations.
First of all, even if the US is unable to go back to its position of recognizing China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, it should honor its stated position of not taking sides on issues concerning territorial disputes. If the US is truly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea and the wider Asia-Pacific and a rule-based order, it should judge the issue on its merits, respect facts, oppose or restrain provocations by certain countries against China and encourage countries directly concerned to settle the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation and implement the DOC fully and effectively.
Second, one should not be too ready to frame the South China Sea issue as a strategic issue or interpret and predict China's behavior by drawing from western theories of international relations and history. It would be nothing but baseless speculation to assert that China wants to make the South China Sea an Asian Caribbean Sea and impose the Monroe Doctrine to exclude the US from Asia or that China is trying to compete with the US for dominance in the South China Sea, Asia and even the world. Unlike traditional western powers, China, an oriental civilization that goes back five thousand years, has distinctive culture, values, political thinking and view of the world. For China, the South China Sea issue is all about territorial sovereignty, security, development and maritime rights and interests. It is all about preventing further tragic losses of territory. China's thinking is as simple as that. And there is no other agenda behind it. We have no intention or capability to engage in "strategic rivalry" with anyone. We have no ambition to rule Asia, still less the Earth. Even in the context of the issue in question, we have never claimed we own the entire South China Sea. We only have one ambition, which is to manage our own affairs well and ensure a decent life and dignity for the nearly 1.4 billion Chinese people.
China's right to rise peacefully and deliver a better life for its people should not and will not be taken away by anyone.
Third, the US's heavy-handed intervention in the South China Sea issue needs to be scaled back. There is deep concern about the US continued reinforcement of its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific and forward deployment of its military assets. Since last year, the US has intensified its close-in reconnaissance and "Freedom of Navigation" operations targeted at China. The rhetoric of a few people in the US has become blatantly confrontational. How would you feel if you were Chinese and read in the newspapers or watch on TV reports and footages about US aircraft carriers, naval ships and fighter jets flexing muscles right at your doorstep and hear a senior US military official telling the troops to be ready "to fight tonight"? Wouldn't you consider it unhelpful to the US image in the world? This is certainly not the way China and the US should interact with each other.
Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea. Furthermore, US intervention on the issue has led some countries to believe that the US is on their side and they stand to gain from the competition between major countries. As a result, we have seen more provocations from these countries, adding uncertainties and escalating tensions in the South China Sea. This, in fact, is not in the interest of the US. The risk for the US is that it may be dragged into trouble against its own will and pay an unexpectedly heavy price. Hopefully, the countries, whose recent course of action has been driven by reckless impulse, will engage in some cool-headed thinking and realize that China has been living alongside them peacefully as a friendly neighbor for several thousand years. Neither had this neighbor invaded anyone nor interfered in any country's internal affairs. Neither is this neighbor pursuing any regime change nor building confrontational political or military blocs. All China's endeavors are focused on protecting its sovereignty, security and development interests and it has no intention to seek dominance or hegemony. Those countries will eventually see that it is the friendly China that will remain their neighbor for generations to come instead of some faraway superpower.
Fourth, China and the US need to find ways to manage their differences constructively. As I said, the South China Sea issue boils down to disputes between China and a few other littoral states. Given that these disputes are not going to be settled any time soon, the key question is how these disputes should be managed pending final resolution. Should parties provoke each other over these disputes, aggravate tensions and encourage confrontation? Or should they downplay the disputes, shelve their differences and expand cooperation? The answer is apparent. China has all along been committed to resolving the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation. Even though the South China Sea is clearly not an issue between China and the US, China is willing to maintain communication with the US on maritime issues and work with the US and all other parties to keep the situation under control, considering our shared interest in peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Our two sides may work together to find ways to jointly promote regional peace and stability through constructive dialogue on matters such as regional confidence-building, effectively managing disputes and advancing maritime practical cooperation.
Fifth, China and the US need to expand their positive maritime agenda. Both countries support freedom of navigation and overflight. As long as the US does not use that as a pretext to challenge China's sovereignty and security interests, the two countries can cooperate on a global level to safeguard such freedom. Closer cooperation is also called for in a wide range of ocean-related fields such as marine environmental protection, marine science and research and maritime law-enforcement to give a stronger boost to China-US interaction at sea.
I was born at the height of the Second World War, and as a 75-year-old man, I either lived through or witnessed the evolution of relations between some major countries. I have studied the Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq War and how these wars took a heavy toll on the US. Since the turn of the century, I had the further privilege to chair China's strategic dialogues with the US and some other major countries, which were of great depth and quality and helped produce common thinking between our two countries on building a new model of major-country relationship. I love my country and people and have nothing but profound goodwill towards the American people. I wish for the best of China-US relations and for both our countries. We must work together to avoid strategic mistakes pushing us into conflict or confrontation. Some of my remarks today might sound a little bit harsh, but I said them with the best of intentions. You may consider them words spoken from the heart of a friend of the US.
Wang Anshi, a famous Chinese poet who lived in the Northern Song Dynasty wrote, "We should not be afraid of the clouds blocking our view, because we already are at the highest elevation." It means that only by adopting a strategic vision and minimizing distractions can one understand where the trend is moving. In a globalized world full of opportunities and challenges, as the biggest developing and developed countries and the world's two largest economies, China and the US shoulder more common responsibilities and face more common challenges in driving world economic recovery and promoting international peace and security. There is so much potential of cooperation yet to be tapped. What we need is not a microscope to enlarge our differences, but a telescope to look ahead and focus on cooperation. Both Chinese and Americans are great nations with insight and vision. As long as the two sides work for common interests, respect each other, treat each other as equals, have candid dialogue, and expand common ground, China and the US will be able to manage differences and find the key to turning those issues into opportunities of working together. I have no doubt that China-US relations will embrace a great future.
To conclude, I wish the dialogue a full success.
Posted in: Asian Review, South China Sea Focus
South China Sea issue must cool down
Source:Globaltimes.cn Published: 2016-7-6 16:35:00
The following is the full text(minus pleasantries and unrelated comments) of a speech delivered by former State councilor Dai Bingguo at China-US Dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks on Tuesday in Washington.
I am delighted to attend the China-US dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks jointly organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University...
For a period of time, the South China Sea which used to be a rather quiet place has become not so quiet. The situation there has heated up to a quite unusual degree, drawing extensive international attention. What has really happened there? I noticed that reports and comments on this issue tend to take a static view from a certain angle, and thus have not shown the full picture of the South China Sea issue. In my view, to study an international hot spot issue, it is necessary to seek truth from facts by fully considering the relevant international background, tracing the historical development, and thoroughly reviewing how the concerned parties have interacted on this issue. Only in this way can one see the whole picture, tell right from wrong and draw the right conclusion. In this vein, I would like to focus my speech on the historical facts of the South China Sea issue and China's policy on this issue. And I will endeavor to view and handle the South China Sea issue from the perspective of China-US relations and explore ways to genuinely cool down this issue and restore calm to this part of the world.
1.Nansha Islands are China's Integral Territory
Historical materials of China and many western countries corroborate the fact that it was the Chinese people who were the first to discover, name, develop and administer the islands in South China Sea, and that the Chinese government was the first to peacefully and effectively exercise continuous sovereign jurisdiction on South China Sea islands. During the Second World War, Japan illegally invaded and occupied China's South China Sea islands, which were restored to China after the war. Pursuant to Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which were cornerstones of the post-war international order, Japan shall return the stolen Chinese territory to China. Following the end of the war, China restored Taiwan, Penghu Islands, Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands illegally occupied by Japan.
Many of you were probably not aware of this, but China's actions to restore the islands were supported by General Douglas McArthur. China's military and government personnel were ferried by US-provided military vessels to Xisha and Nansha Islands to hold the restoration ceremony. After that, the US filed applications to Chinese authorities on Taiwan to conduct geodetic survey in some of Nansha Islands on many occasions.
All this shows that the return of Nansha Islands to China is part of the post-war international order and relevant territorial arrangements. For a long time since the end of the War, the US has recognized and in reality respected China's sovereignty over Nansha Islands. China's sovereignty over South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other international law. To be blunt, when the US states today that it does not take a position on issues of territory, it actually amounts to back-peddling and defiance of the post-war international order, which the US itself has participated in building.
There are sufficient grounds to state that on the South China Sea issue, China is completely at the receiving end of encroachments. For a long time, the South China Sea had remained trouble free and calm. But since the 1970s, the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries have illegally occupied 42 islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands by force, which gave rise to disputes over territory in these islands and reefs. Over several decades, the Philippines and Vietnam carried out large scale construction and deployed armaments on them and continued to take provocative actions at sea. These illegal occupations and provocations are violations of international law and the UN Charter, and should be universally condemned. The world can see that on the South China Sea issue, China is by no means a wrong-doer or trouble maker, but rather a victim. According to international law, China has every right to self preservation and self-defense. It possesses the ability to recover the above-mentioned islands and reefs. However, in the interest of regional peace and stability, China has all along exercised enormous restraint, and sought peaceful settlement through negotiations. In recent years, China has taken actions only as compelled response at a minimal level to unbridled encroachments by certain countries on China's rights and interests. Stand in China's shoes for a moment, if it was the US who was challenged with such provocation, it would have long resorted to force to recover the illegally occupied islands and reefs.
2. China remains committed to peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations with countries directly concerned.
The Chinese government was the first to propose and has consistently followed the position of "shelving disputes and pursuing common development." Its consistent position on the South China Sea issue includes the following three elements:
--Disputes should be settled peacefully through negotiation and consultation, and managed through rules, norms and operating mechanisms;
--Shared interests should be expanded through joint development and cooperation;
--Freedom of navigation and overflight should be upheld and peace and stability maintained.
These are both China's basic policies and solemn pledges on the South China Sea issue. For the past several decades, the South China Sea region has maintained stability on the whole, and the relevant disputes have been kept under control. Southeast Asia has been able to achieve robust growth, and is seen as an example of peace, stability and prosperity and a magnet of cooperation in the eyes of many countries and regions. This is a great contribution China and its neighbors have made to the international community.
As the biggest coastal country of the South China Sea and a country dedicated to peaceful development, China sees peace and stability of the South China Sea as bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation. Despite the negative impact of factors both within and outside the region, China has not lost confidence and will stick to its policy of seeking peaceful settlement through bilateral negotiation and consultation, for the following reasons.
First, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation best reflects adherence to international law and the basic norms of international relations. According to the UN Charter and the Declaration on
Principles of International Law, negotiation is the primary way for peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UNCLOS stipulates that countries concerned should settle maritime delimitation disputes through negotiations as the first recourse, and China and ASEAN countries also made such solemn commitment in the DOC. The fact is, China has benefited from the existing international order, and has firmly observed and upheld such order. China will continue to honor its due obligations, earnestly fulfill international and regional responsibilities, uphold the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS and other international law, and safeguard the rule of law.
Second, to settle disputes peacefully and through negotiations has been a successful practice of China in implementing international rule of law. Back in the 1950s, China has proposed addressing historical boundary issues through consultation under the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. In the following decades, China has resolved its boundary questions with 12 out of 14 land neighbors through negotiations. They have surveyed and demarcated around 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, about 90% of China's land boundary. China and Vietnam have delimited maritime boundary at the Beibu Gulf through negotiation. Of all boundary talks, those between China and Russia lasted for over 40 years, between China and Vietnam on land boundary over 30 years, and on Beibu Gulf over 20 years. I personally have participated in some of the boundary talks, and I believe that peaceful negotiations can best reflect countries' own will and sovereign equality and have unique strength and efficacy in addressing complex territorial and maritime disputes. There is no reason why disputes in the South China Sea cannot be resolved through peaceful negotiations.
Third, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation is the only viable way to manage and resolve the South China Sea issue. The truth is, the parties concerned in the South China Sea issue have all along been working in this direction, which is also a clear provision in the DOC. The parties have established mature and effective mechanisms to this end, and the COC consultation has been making notable progress.
Despite all this, the Philippines went on a pervert course of initiating arbitration without prior consultation with China. This is nothing but an act of imposition by the Philippines on China, and a culmination of the Philippines' actions to advance its illegal claims. The truth behind the arbitration case is political intrigue, whereby certain countries have been deliberately provoking problems and stirring up tensions, eager to see turbulence in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. By making a so called "award", it has willfully expanded its power, which is against the UNCLOS and is null and void.
By taking a position of not participating in or accepting the arbitration, China is upholding its own rights and interests under international law and safeguarding the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS. We hope that the US side will take an objective and fair approach regarding the arbitration, rather than criticizing China for upholding the UNCLOS from the position of a non-state party. The final award of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper. China suffered enough from hegemonism, power politics and bullying by Western Powers since modern times. The Versailles peace conference at the end of World War I forced a sold-out of Shandong Province. The Lyton Commission, sent by the League of Nations when Japan invaded China's northeast provinces, only served to justify Japan's invasion. Even the US-led negotiations on San Francisco Peace Treaty excluded China. These episodes are still vivid in our memory. That is why China will grip its own future on issues of territorial sovereignty, and will never accept any solution imposed by a third party.
3. The situation in the South China Sea must cool down.
The temperature of the South China Sea is now high enough. Some people even clamored for "fight tonight". If such momentum went unchecked, accidents could happen and the South China Sea might sink into chaos and so might the entire Asia. Should that happen, it will be countries around the South China Sea, the Asian countries and even the US itself that will suffer. We must not let this happen, and not allow Asia to become another West Asia and North Africa. Anyone intent on fueling the flames and unleashing disastrous outcomes will be held accountable by history.
Cooling down temperatures in the South China Sea requires concrete efforts by all countries concerned.
First, the urgent priority is to stop the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an "award", no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation. And the Philippines must be dissuaded from making any further provocation. Otherwise, China would not sit idle.
Second, China and the US have neither disputes over even one inch of territory nor fundamental clash of interests in the South China Sea. The South China Sea issue should not be allowed to define China-US relations.
Rather, this issue should be put in perspective against larger bilateral relations and be transformed into an area of cooperation rather than arena for confrontation. We must forestall undue disruptions or damages to the overall China-US relations as a result of differences over this issue. The people of China and the US will not forgive us, if we let the basically sound China-US relations cultivated by both sides over the past forty years be ruined by misjudgment and mishandling over this issue.
I have made China's position and views clear. Let me conclude with a few more personal observations.
First of all, even if the US is unable to go back to its position of recognizing China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, it should honor its stated position of not taking sides on issues concerning territorial disputes. If the US is truly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea and the wider Asia-Pacific and a rule-based order, it should judge the issue on its merits, respect facts, oppose or restrain provocations by certain countries against China and encourage countries directly concerned to settle the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation and implement the DOC fully and effectively.
Second, one should not be too ready to frame the South China Sea issue as a strategic issue or interpret and predict China's behavior by drawing from western theories of international relations and history. It would be nothing but baseless speculation to assert that China wants to make the South China Sea an Asian Caribbean Sea and impose the Monroe Doctrine to exclude the US from Asia or that China is trying to compete with the US for dominance in the South China Sea, Asia and even the world. Unlike traditional western powers, China, an oriental civilization that goes back five thousand years, has distinctive culture, values, political thinking and view of the world. For China, the South China Sea issue is all about territorial sovereignty, security, development and maritime rights and interests. It is all about preventing further tragic losses of territory. China's thinking is as simple as that. And there is no other agenda behind it. We have no intention or capability to engage in "strategic rivalry" with anyone. We have no ambition to rule Asia, still less the Earth. Even in the context of the issue in question, we have never claimed we own the entire South China Sea. We only have one ambition, which is to manage our own affairs well and ensure a decent life and dignity for the nearly 1.4 billion Chinese people.
China's right to rise peacefully and deliver a better life for its people should not and will not be taken away by anyone.
Third, the US's heavy-handed intervention in the South China Sea issue needs to be scaled back. There is deep concern about the US continued reinforcement of its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific and forward deployment of its military assets. Since last year, the US has intensified its close-in reconnaissance and "Freedom of Navigation" operations targeted at China. The rhetoric of a few people in the US has become blatantly confrontational. How would you feel if you were Chinese and read in the newspapers or watch on TV reports and footages about US aircraft carriers, naval ships and fighter jets flexing muscles right at your doorstep and hear a senior US military official telling the troops to be ready "to fight tonight"? Wouldn't you consider it unhelpful to the US image in the world? This is certainly not the way China and the US should interact with each other.
Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea. Furthermore, US intervention on the issue has led some countries to believe that the US is on their side and they stand to gain from the competition between major countries. As a result, we have seen more provocations from these countries, adding uncertainties and escalating tensions in the South China Sea. This, in fact, is not in the interest of the US. The risk for the US is that it may be dragged into trouble against its own will and pay an unexpectedly heavy price. Hopefully, the countries, whose recent course of action has been driven by reckless impulse, will engage in some cool-headed thinking and realize that China has been living alongside them peacefully as a friendly neighbor for several thousand years. Neither had this neighbor invaded anyone nor interfered in any country's internal affairs. Neither is this neighbor pursuing any regime change nor building confrontational political or military blocs. All China's endeavors are focused on protecting its sovereignty, security and development interests and it has no intention to seek dominance or hegemony. Those countries will eventually see that it is the friendly China that will remain their neighbor for generations to come instead of some faraway superpower.
Fourth, China and the US need to find ways to manage their differences constructively. As I said, the South China Sea issue boils down to disputes between China and a few other littoral states. Given that these disputes are not going to be settled any time soon, the key question is how these disputes should be managed pending final resolution. Should parties provoke each other over these disputes, aggravate tensions and encourage confrontation? Or should they downplay the disputes, shelve their differences and expand cooperation? The answer is apparent. China has all along been committed to resolving the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation. Even though the South China Sea is clearly not an issue between China and the US, China is willing to maintain communication with the US on maritime issues and work with the US and all other parties to keep the situation under control, considering our shared interest in peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Our two sides may work together to find ways to jointly promote regional peace and stability through constructive dialogue on matters such as regional confidence-building, effectively managing disputes and advancing maritime practical cooperation.
Fifth, China and the US need to expand their positive maritime agenda. Both countries support freedom of navigation and overflight. As long as the US does not use that as a pretext to challenge China's sovereignty and security interests, the two countries can cooperate on a global level to safeguard such freedom. Closer cooperation is also called for in a wide range of ocean-related fields such as marine environmental protection, marine science and research and maritime law-enforcement to give a stronger boost to China-US interaction at sea.
I was born at the height of the Second World War, and as a 75-year-old man, I either lived through or witnessed the evolution of relations between some major countries. I have studied the Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq War and how these wars took a heavy toll on the US. Since the turn of the century, I had the further privilege to chair China's strategic dialogues with the US and some other major countries, which were of great depth and quality and helped produce common thinking between our two countries on building a new model of major-country relationship. I love my country and people and have nothing but profound goodwill towards the American people. I wish for the best of China-US relations and for both our countries. We must work together to avoid strategic mistakes pushing us into conflict or confrontation. Some of my remarks today might sound a little bit harsh, but I said them with the best of intentions. You may consider them words spoken from the heart of a friend of the US.
Wang Anshi, a famous Chinese poet who lived in the Northern Song Dynasty wrote, "We should not be afraid of the clouds blocking our view, because we already are at the highest elevation." It means that only by adopting a strategic vision and minimizing distractions can one understand where the trend is moving. In a globalized world full of opportunities and challenges, as the biggest developing and developed countries and the world's two largest economies, China and the US shoulder more common responsibilities and face more common challenges in driving world economic recovery and promoting international peace and security. There is so much potential of cooperation yet to be tapped. What we need is not a microscope to enlarge our differences, but a telescope to look ahead and focus on cooperation. Both Chinese and Americans are great nations with insight and vision. As long as the two sides work for common interests, respect each other, treat each other as equals, have candid dialogue, and expand common ground, China and the US will be able to manage differences and find the key to turning those issues into opportunities of working together. I have no doubt that China-US relations will embrace a great future.
To conclude, I wish the dialogue a full success.
Posted in: Asian Review, South China Sea Focus
Great money saving ideas for the HDB
HDB is
worried that it will lose $100m a year if it does not raise the parking fees.
After writing a piece on it, another blogger, a jjgg, commented HDB should do
away with charging parking fees to save money, or at least don’t have to lose
$100m yearly. Actually this comment makes a lot of sense.
Let me work
out the numbers, the operating cost of running and managing the carparks came
to $700m a year. The electronic parking system costs $300m to install not
counting maintenance, repair, servicing etc etc, and the total cost of managing
the carparks will balloon to a loss of $100m, ie all revenues less all cost =
loss of $100m.
Now,
according blogger jjgg, if HDB would to do away with running the carparks, no
need to manage and charge parking fees, it will save $100m a year, instead of
losing the same amount. It would also save $700m on operating cost. And no need
to worry about escalating costs. This would work out to a neat saving of $ the
carparks and save at least $950m a year. A small sum of the money saved can
then be used to beautify the carparks and cleaning. Like that, HDB management must
be very happy. Win win man! The
residents who have to park their cars in the carparks would also be very happy,
parking for free.
And most
important, the next GE sure win, 90% majority votes.
What do you
think? Isn’t the present carpark system creating problems and cost to HDB,
working and doing for nothing? Why go
through so much trouble to lose money and to make the residents unhappy? Why
start something that loses money when doing nothing can save so much money and
make everyone happy?
700m + $100m
plus also not having to own and maintain the $300m electronic parking system.
While the electronic parking is still new, it can be dismantled and sell off at
a discount, would still easily bring in $150m at half price.
See, so
simple. Just do away with managing
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)