Towards closer ties between China and US

Win-win By Luo Jie

President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States may mean vastly improved China-US relations, with key agreements signed ahead to mark the occasion.







IF timing is a significant factor in shaping important events, what has it done to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States?

That the visit came at the same time as the first-ever papal address to the US Congress meant that media attention was effectively halved. Xi and Pope Francis had to share the media blitz; prime-time and front-page priorities were split.

But while the Pope’s visit was imbued with spirituality, Xi’s was rich in material significance and consequence. The Xi-Obama huddle was a meeting between leaders of the world’s two largest economies with much to discuss on economic and security matters.

More significantly, the Chinese leader, who is still in the early years of his decade in office, has come to visit his US counterpart in the twilight of the latter’s tenure. Yet China’s state media have no qualms about calling the visit “historic”.

President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. Although that is still more than a year away, it takes time for two distant yet interrelated, lumbering giants – China and the United States – to size each other up to work effectively together.

Not that Xi and Obama are total strangers. They have met repeatedly since 2009, some of those times only incidentally “on the sidelines” of a larger conference.

Still, much is assumed about the decisive nature of personal rapport between leaders. What impact does it have on bilateral relations between nations?

Western societies generally prefer formal agreements such as treaties to benchmark external relations.

For Asian countries such as China, unilateral pledges work as well and their voluntary observance deserves plaudits.

But Asian cultures also value personal connections, such that know-who is at least as important as know-how. Thus, Xi’s careful cultivation of Obama is nearing its end.

That cultivation has included the development of relations between the two First Ladies, and Xi’s affinity with Lincoln High School and Tacoma from early personal associations.

These are human touches, not simply frivolous details. For millions of Americans, they help to flesh out the character of the leader of an otherwise faceless, alien monolith that is China.

The importance of a personable character and thus of personal ties is also more important in the United States than is generally supposed. How can the personal imprint of any particular president on policy be denied?

It is unlikely for US policy on China to be identical with George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House. Election impresario and political mud wrestler Donald Trump will want it to be different again in his White House.

The US election season has begun, and among the seasonal domestic bloodsports is China bashing. How will the next president honour any deals Obama now makes with China?

The soothing argument is that however much a maverick a presidential candidate may be, the heft of political realities and high office will weigh on the incoming president to ensure a pragmatic moderation.

The problem is that nothing can guarantee that outcome.

Consistency in China’s external policymaking is less of a problem. A one-party state ensures that regardless of the personal style or preference of the leader of the day, the collective outlook is constant.

Barring unforeseen circumstances and contingencies, the ends and means in China’s long-term plans are reasonably clear. Individual leaders bring only a certain accent or tenor to dealmaking, with certain emphases such as eliminating corruption.

Xi has also called for a major reset in relations with the United States since at least 2013. No country can reasonably reject that call so there has been progress, even if it has been slow.

Xi’s first state visit is particularly significant in tackling three main themes head-on: essential new major-power bilateral relations, economic cooperation whose need is obvious enough, and military cooperation, which is as important as it may seem unlikely.

In mid-2013, just months into his new presidency, Xi flew to Califor­nia for a working meeting with Obama to jointly design a new style of US-China relations. They agreed on the importance of that task and on its follow-through.

This month’s summit is the next big step on that road. In the intervening two years, officials on both sides had been working on consolidating that agreement.

The economic aspects of the reset in relations are the most evident. So are their limitations.

The US Foreign Investment and National Security Act (2007) constrains China’s investments in certain key sectors deemed to impinge on key US infrastructure or other national security interests. Foreign enterprises are known to face difficulties in acquiring stakes in US “strategic industries” – oil or high technology assets.

China followed the US example this year with a draft of its own Foreign Investment Law (2015). During the Seattle trip, Xi pledged to facilitate US investments in China, but it was not clear if any aspect of the FIL would be compromised.

Meanwhile, reports of mergers and acquisitions between China and the United States continue to show promise.

The value of M&A deals in the first half of this year exceeded US$300bil (RM1.3 trillion), an increase of more than 60% over the same period last year, which had already set the record for the first half year.

Perhaps most significantly, China and the United States signed annexes to two agreements on major military operations, as well as air and sea encounters.

With China’s growing naval reach and US naval “rebalancing”, sea lanes in the Western Pacific are becoming more traversed as routes tend to overlap. The agreements signed just days before are intended to improve operational coordination and avoid misunderstanding and false alarms.

The first annex covers a telephone hotline between both countries’ defence ministries and mutual notification of an impending crisis. The second relates to airborne encounters, improved communication and better coordination in emergencies.

These are still early days in such China-US cooperation, but a promising start has been made in addressing the most pressing concerns. More cooperation and coordination can be expected.

More broadly, China-US cooperation has yielded results in environmental management and the Iran nuclear deal. More progress may be envisaged over North Korea, anti-terrorism measures and even improved US-Russia relations.

In already focusing on security provisions for the Western Pacific, with all its implications for the South China Sea and the East China Sea, Beijing and Washington have taken the bull by the horns.

This is surely the better and bolder way. The alternative is a somewhat indecisive and half-hearted attempt to face the issues, in part by deferring them to a later time that may never come.

Now that a bold start has been made, the follow-up has to be at least as gutsy. The momentum, once created, has to be maintained and built on to reach satisfactory policy conclusions.

Chinese commentaries have largely pronounced Xi’s state visit as momentous, in terms of China’s intent in soliciting a positive US response to redefining their bilateral relations. That will also require China’s continued commitment to the cause.

Xi’s objectives should also be Obama’s, as evidenced in their discussions for two years now, particularly since these objectives equally serve US and Chinese interests. To help realise them, the United States needs to contribute its share of commitment.


By Bunn Nagara Behind the Headlines

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Xi visit helps US avoid anxiety over China

President Xi Jinping arrived in Washington DC on Thursday. His stay there was the climax of his week-long state visit to the US.

The diplomatic exchanges in recent years seem to have reached a consensus, in which the heads of state prefer to hold a more private and longer meeting, where the subjects of their talks can range from domestic as well as diplomatic matters. Such a scheme helps to build personal trust and enable them to better understand each country's policies.

On Thursday night, Xi and Obama's talk lasted for three hours. On Friday morning the two met again in limited company. When the meeting expanded to more people, the duration was shorter. As such intensive exchanges continue, China and the US are in better place to avoid strategic miscalculation.

As for the achievement of this visit, people are focusing their attention on how much the talks over cyber security can yield and whether a code of behavior to govern the two air forces' encounter will be officially signed. Although the bilateral investment treaty may not be signed this time, an exchange of negative lists for foreign investment will help both sides get closer toward the eventual agreement.

The strategic impact of Xi's visit will take effect in the near future, which will be assessed by how much the tension will ease around thorny issues between the two countries.

Talk about a "Thucydides trap," in which a rising power clashes with an existing power, permeates academic and media circles, especially in the US.

However, both Xi and Obama said they do not believe in the Thucydides trap, which means the two countries will not walk toward the strategic confrontation.

The US had three enemies in history, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. China is different from any of the three. It is larger than Germany and Japan, and it was more efficient than the Soviet Union. The most important thing is that China is one of the largest US trade partners. The US has more interests in China than in any of its allies.

China is still growing at a high speed, though the momentum has slowed. But the growth still outpaces other major economies. The anxiety from the US is inevitable.

Xi's latest visit has helped ease the anxiety from the US. The Chinese and US people may also do something to help their countries avoid the Thucydides trap - give their governments more flexibility so that both can make compromises on thorny matters. - Global Times

Related posts:

China-US new type of major power relations: positive narratives needed to help turn negative tide

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT New type of great power relations Xi Jinping's upcoming visit to the US comes amid the two sides'...

China's Long March-6 new carrier rocket succeeds in carrying 20 satellites to space

A new model of China's carrier rocket Long March-6 carrying 20 micro-satellites blasts off from the launch pad at 7:01 a.m. from the...

Related:

Xi's DC visit hailed as success

The first official state visit to the United States by Chinese President Xi Jinping has been applauded as a great success, despite skepticism expressed by some before the trip.

The US needs to reciprocate China's goodwill

Chinese President Xi Jinping's first state visit to the US sent two impressive messages. First, he r[Read it]

New International Relationship Must Feature Win-Win Cooperation

File Photo: Chinese peacekeepers sets out to participate in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. [Read it]

Commentary: China Will Never Close Its Open Door to the Outside World

File photo of cargo ship leaving Yangshan Port in Shanghai, largest city in China. Chinese Preside[Read it]

Spotlight: Xi's remarks on China-U.S. local-level cooperation resonate with U.S. officials, experts

Chinese President Xi Jinping (4th L, rear) speaks during the Third China-U.S. Governors Forum in Sea[Read it]

The four things that will improve China-US relations

Chinese President Xi Jinping puts forward a four-point proposal on the development of a new model of[Read it]

President Xi’s six trips to US enhance Sino-US relations

Chinese President Xi Jinping paid his first visit to the United States in 1985. At the time, he was [Read it]

China turns to UN to set record straight in row with Vietnam over oil rig

Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, speaks during a meeting to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the enforcement of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, at the UN headquarters in New York, on June 9, 2014. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)

China sends note to UN chief to clarify Xisha situation

China has presented documents to the United Nations, proving its sovereignty over the Xisha Islands ...

Beijing’s efforts to garner support at the United Nations in its territorial row with Hanoi reflect its maturing diplomacy as well as its determination to clarify facts and defend interests, observers said.

In a rare move, Wang Min, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, handed a position paper to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday.

Wang asked Ban to circulate the paper, which includes an article from the Foreign Ministry detailing its stance, among all 193 members of the General Assembly.

“Previously, we seldom take maritime territorial rows to the international arena, but this time, China is determined to make the facts clear,” said Luo Yongkun, a researcher on South-East Asian studies with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

He added that Beijing’s efforts to take the row to the UN are a signal of “its diplomacy getting mature”.

“We have strong proof of sovereignty over the region and have done a lot benefiting countries in the region. However, we seldom talk about that on international sites, as some countries do, so few are aware of that,” he said. “It’s not only about the row with Vietnam, but also about defending China’s national image.”

Vietnam has sent notes to the UN about the dispute, harshly criticising China and hinting at the possibility of seeking international arbitration, which Beijing said it would never accept.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said on Tuesday that she hoped the news media can understand the aim of Hanoi in hyping the row.

The Chinese note handed to the UN accused Vietnam of ramming Chinese vessels more than 1,400 times near a Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea recently.

It said China National Offshore Oil Corp has been conducting seismic operations and well site surveys in the area for the past 10 years, and the drilling operation “is a continuation of the routine process of exploration and falls well within China’s sovereignty and jurisdiction”.

The operation area is 31km from the baseline of the territorial waters of China’s Xisha Islands, and between 246 and 289km from the coast of Vietnam.

“Vietnam also sent frogmen and other underwater agents to the area, and dropped large numbers of obstacles, including fishing nets and floating objects, in the waters,” the paper said.

It said Vietnam’s actions violated China’s sovereignty, posed “grave threats” to Chinese personnel on the rig and violated international laws including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“China sent the note to tell the international community the truth and set straight their understanding on the issue,” Wang said after delivering the position paper.

However, he called for maritime disputes to be settled through negotiation between the parties directly involved.

Chen Xiangyang, another researcher at the China Institute of Contem­porary International Rela­tions, said Beijing’s move is a “justifiable defence” against Hanoi’s provocation at the UN.

He said that on this issue, China also has to fight the biased reports of Western media and some countries taking sides with Vietnam regardless of the history and facts. — China Daily / Asia News Network

Related:

• Vietnam fooling no one

• China defends legitimacy of oil rig in S. China Sea

  

  In an article posted on its Foreign Ministry website, China has defended the legitimacy of its oil d...

• History of Chinese sovereignty over the Xisha Islands

For decades, Chinese official statements and legal documents have again and again reaffirmed China’s...

• • China urges settling maritime disputes through negotiation

    A Chinese envoy said China attaches high importance to maritime affairs at a meeting to commemorate ...

Double standards on Ukraine and Crimea

Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.

THE Russian incursion into Ukraine’s region of Crimea has, understandably, drawn strong critical response from the United States and the European Union. However, an impartial observer cannot fail to note the staggering hypocrisy evident in the Western response to Russia’s military actions.

International law: It is alleged that the Russian military intervention is a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty under international law. It probably is.

This is despite the fact that the Russian expedition was at the behest of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected and unlawfully deposed President.

What is noteworthy is that Russia acted under grave provocation and in circumstances that the US would never tolerate.

Background: Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been encircling Russia with military and missile sites including one in Ukraine.

Nato has enlisted many former Soviet republics into its fold.

Russia is understandably sensitive about its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine and Nato’s presence on its borders.

This is no different from President John F. Kennedy’s alarm when the USSR, under Nikita Khruschev, ins­talled missiles in Cuba in the Sixties.

In addition to military encirclement, a US organisation, namely the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was operating in Ukraine and funding 65 projects, grooming replacements for President Yanuko­vych and resorting to psychological warfare.

The NED was founded in America in 1983 to promote its foreign policy objectives abroad.

In recent times Ukraine was mired in an economic crisis and Russia and the EU were in a bidding war to salvage it. Russia earmarked US$15bil (RM49bil) in economic assistance. The EU offered US$800mil (RM2.6bil) plus access to EU goods and services.

When Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych aligned with Russia against the EU proposal, the Western backed opposition took to the streets.

The US-funded National Endowment for Democracy was complicit in fuelling the disorder. Radical forces gained ascendency and violence begat violence. 

Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected President, offered to set up a unity government, bring electoral reform, effect constitutional changes and call early elections.

Unfortunately, negotiations broke down. He was then ousted in a US-supported coup and replaced with US chosen stand-ins.

The Ukrainian Parliament then acted foolishly to enact a series of draconian laws offensive to ethnic Russians in provinces that were carved out of the old Soviet Union. Yanukovych sought Russia’s help to protect the ethnic Russian population.

Under these circumstances, the Russian Parliament authorised Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy troops inside Ukraine to protect the Russians living there.

US exceptionalism: The US has a long history of similar and even bloodier interventions as Russia’s. It has bombed or invaded 30 countries since World War Two.

In the last decade itself, there were full-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up charges plus bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.

US drones blow up “enemy combatants” in many parts of the world with sickening regularity.

The US keeps Syria and Iran under constant threats.

It refuses to join the International Criminal Court lest its international crimes be prosecuted.

Despite its professed belief in democracy, Washington has a sordid record of collaborating with right-wing military officers to overthrow elected leaders who do not do Washington’s bidding.

A partial list would include Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran (1953), Jacobo Arbez in Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende in Chile (1973), Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti twice, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (2002), Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2009), Mohammed Morsi in Egypt (2013) and now Yanukovych in Ukraine (2014).

A close parallel to the Russian intervention was President Bill Clinton’s invasion of Haiti in 1994 to reinstall Haiti’s elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Russia has not gone that far regarding Yanukovych.

Besides the US, France is notable for its recent military interventions in its former colonies of Mali and Central African Republic.

Unconstitutionality: The US alleges that the Crimean referendum that resulted in an overwhelming vote to join Russia was contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution.

In fact, the trampling of the Ukrainian Constitution was equally evident in the ouster of the democratically elected President, which the US lustily cheered.

Under the Constitution of 1996 (which was restored by Yanukovych in 2010) Parliament has the right to impeach a President for treason or other crimes by a three-fourths majority.

This majority was not obtained. The impeachment must be reviewed by a Constitutional Court and it is not clear whether this mandatory procedure was complied with.

Also, it is the PM and not the Speaker of the House, who should under the Constitution fill the vacant presidency.

Secession: If Crimea’s secession is illegal, can the US explain its support for the secession of Bosnia, Kosovo, Slovakia, the Falkland Islands, East Timor, Scotland and Catalonia?

In fact the West was delirious about the break-up of Sudan.

One could point to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) that “all people have the right of self-determination”.

Cold war: The Crimean crisis reignites the Cold War between Russia and the West. At stake is Ukraine’s return to the Russian sphere of influence or its drift towards the West.

Alternatively, the country will split into two – its Western part drifting towards a reluctant Europe and the South and the East remaining aligned with Russia.

Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.

The Crimean Tartars face an uncertain future in Russia.

In the meantime, one cannot but marvel at the breathtaking hypocrisy of all sides – the US and EU on Ukraine and Russia on Chechnya.

William Blum puts it well: “Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected”!

Contributed by Shad Saleem Faruqi Reflecting On The Law

> Shad Faruqi, Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM, is a passionate student and teacher of the law who aspires to make difficult things look simple and simple things look rich. Through this column, he seeks to inspire change for the better as every political, social and economic issue ultimately has constitutional law implications. He can be reached at prof.shad.saleem.faruqi@gmail.com. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Related posts:

•   China should offer Hagel tough welcome

• Western hegemony & violence: ousting democratically-elected leaders in Ukraine and elsewhere!

•  The hypocrisy of some nations
•  China slams Japan PM Abe’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos implication: the Nazis Hitler’s DNA of the East?
•  China keeps an eye on Abe as Japan PM seeks to rally support from Asean

The hypocrisy of some nations

Video:U.S. Hypocrisy? Telling Russia To Stay Out of Ukraine

Double standards are on display as Western leaders attack Russia regarding Ukraine, while they themselves commit or endorse worse aggression on other countries.

WORLD attention has focused on Ukraine recently. With President Victor Yanukovych making his exit and a new government formed, events shifted to Crimea, with accusations that the Russian military took over the region.

Yanukovych, resurfacing in a Russian town, said he left as his life was at risk, the new regime is illegitimate, and he is still the president.

Sizeable crowds in Crimea (many of whose population are ethnic Russian) are showing anti-Kiev and pro-Russian feelings and the Crimean Parliament had decided to hold a referendum on whether to remain in Ukraine or break away and be part of Russia.

Western leaders have attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin for his alleged invasion of Crimea.

The Russian argument is that it has not invaded, that in any case it has a legitimate interest in Crimea due to historical links and the ethnic Russians who live there have asked for protection against the new and illegitimate Kiev regime.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Russia’s position and actions, it is clear that there has been a long historical Russian-Crimea-Ukraine relationship. The complex condition requires a correspondingly complex solution.

The rhetoric of some Western leaders is aggressive. They accused Russia of violating sovereignty and international law, among other things.

The United States plans to ban visas for selected Russian officials, followed by sanctions on Russian banks, freezing assets of its companies, and possibly trade measures.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have accused Putin of making use of false claims for its invasion, that Crimea is in danger.

“This is the 21st century and we should not see nations step backwards to behave in a 19th or 20th century fashion,” said Kerry. “It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.”

Obama said “Russia cannot with impunity put its soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognised around the world”, adding that Russia is “on the wrong side of history”.

Listening to the American leaders lecturing Russia in their self-righteous tone, one is struck by the double standards and hypocrisy involved.

They don’t seem to realise how they have violated the same principles and behaviour they demand of Russia.

It was after all the United States that invaded Iraq in 2003, massively bombing its territory and killing hundreds of thousands, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction.

The UN Security Council would not give the green light. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Many experts considered the war against Iraq a violation of international law, a view also expressed in a media interview by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in 2011 found former US president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq war.

The United States also waged war in Afghanistan, changing the regime, resulting in thousands of deaths. In Libya, the US and its allies carried out massive bombing, which aided opposition forces and led to the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Even now there are sanctions and the threat of military action against Iran on the suspicion it wants to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied.

In contrast, the US turns a blind eye on Israel’s ownership of nuclear weapons. And when Israel conducted the blanket bombing of Lebanon and Gaza in recent years, with thousands of deaths, there was no condemnation at all from the US, which has also blocked UN Security Council resolutions and actions on its ally.

The US has also come under attack from human rights groups for its use of drones against suspected terrorists but which has also killed many civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council published a Special Rapporteur’s report which detailed the deaths of civilians caused by US drone attacks, and raised many questions of possible violations of international human rights law.

All these actions were done in the 21st century, which adds to many other actions in the 20th century.

It’s thus remarkable that Obama and Kerry could with a straight face accuse Russia of not acting in a 21st century manner, and being on the wrong side of history.

There appears to be still one law for the most powerful, and another for others. The former can invade and kill, while lecturing self-righteously to others.

Whatever one thinks of Russia’s action in Crimea, it should be noted that no one has been killed because of it, at least not yet. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands or millions, who have died and suffered from past and present wars of the US and other Western countries.

Though much of the mainstream media also takes the establishment view, some Western journalists have also pointed out their leaders’ hypocrisy.

In an article, “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy in Ukraine,” the well-known American journalist Robert Parry remarked: “Since World War II, the United States has invaded or otherwise intervened in so many countries that it would be challenging to compile a complete list …

“So, what is one to make of Secretary of State John Kerry’s pronouncement that Russia’s military intervention in the Crimea section of Ukraine – at the behest of the country’s deposed president – is a violation of international law that the United States would never countenance?

“Are Kerry and pretty much everyone else in Official Washington so lacking in self-awareness that they don’t realise that they are condemning actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin that are far less egregious than what they themselves have done?”

Parry concludes that the overriding hypocrisy of the media, Kerry and nearly all of Official Washington is their insistence that the United States actually promotes the principle of democracy or, for that matter, the rule of international law.

Global Trends - By Martin Khor

> The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:
1.  Western hegemony & violence: ousting democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and elsewhere!
2.  Human Rights Record of the United States in 2013
3.  US double standard on terrorism encourages slaughters
Related: 

Nation of Hypocrites 

America is tragically becoming a “Nation of Hypocrites”. How is this so? ... Is it any wonder then that some people look down upon us rather than respect us?

China announces geographic codes for Diaoyu Islands baseline to UN

BEIJING, Sept. 16 (Xinhua) -- Releasing the geographic coordinates of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets marks China's latest move to affirm its sovereignty and administrative jurisdiction over the islands, according to a maritime expert.

China has had the islands under continuous surveillance for a long time, said Jia Yu, vice director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs attached to the State Oceanic Administration (SOA), in an interview with Xinhua on Saturday.

The SOA announced the exact longitude and latitude of Diaoyu Island and 70 of its affiliated islets while publishing location maps, three-dimension effect graphs and sketch maps for the islands on Saturday.

Since 2009, the SOA carried out a general survey of all Chinese islands, including the Diaoyu Islands, and announced their standard names and locations in March, Jia said.

"Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets have been an inherent part of Chinese territory since ancient times and China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands," Jia said.

Announcing the geographic codes is an important step for the country to exercise its administrative jurisdiction over the islands, he said.

"Only the sovereign state and its government can do that and no other nation, organization or individual has the right to do it. Even if they did, the announcement would be invalid," he said.

The move also aims to help the public learn about the islands more vividly through the location maps, three-dimension effect graphs and sketch maps, provided that it remains difficult for the general public to visit the islands, Jia said.

"Through these documents, the country will conduct better surveillance and protection over the islands for future development," Jia added.

On Monday, the Chinese government announced the base points and baselines of the territorial waters of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets, as well as the names and coordinates of 17 base points.

Also on Thursday, China's permanent representative to the United Nations Li Baodong met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and filed a copy of the Chinese government's Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement with the United Nations.

"The two sets of coordinates are meant to maintain China's sovereignty over the land as well as its adjacent waters," Jia said.

UN receives China announcement on Diaoyu Islands baseline

Play Video

 VIDEO: UN RECEIVES CHINA ANNOUNCEMENT ON DIAOYU ISLANDS BASELINE CCTV News - CNTV English

The United Nations has received a copy of Chinese government’s Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement, submitted by China’s permanent representative to UN, Li Baodong.

A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the document will be dealt with appropriately on the basis of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On Thursday, Li Baodong met with Ban Ki-moon, and filed the copy, officially fulfilling the country’s obligations as stipulated in the UN Convention.

Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states are required to deposit with the UN chief charts showing straight baselines and archipelagic baselines, as well as lists of geographical coordinates.

Related stories

Books show China's historic links to Diaoyu Islands 2012-09-15

• China announces geographic codes for Diaoyu Islands 2012-09-15
• Assistant foreign minister: Japan's tricks cannot change China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands 2012-09-15
• China: Patrol mission around Diaoyu Islands is legal

	Roundup: Chinese rally in U.S. cities against Japan's provocations over Diaoyu Islands
•	China's non-CPC parties condemn Japan's "purchase" of Diaoyu Islands
•	Chinese literary, art circles condemn Japan's "purchase" of Diaoyu Islands
•	Meeting held in Sydney to protest against encroachment of Japan to Diaoyu Islands

 

Anti Japanese rally over Diayo Island erupted in twenty over cities in China :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAOsRNLb0vQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Us2WQdbhM&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73wXdmuVUH8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adsJETC5h4U&feature=player_embedded

Related posts

China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands
China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them
Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia?

Euro debt crisis remains biggest threat to global economy, UN reports

UNITED NATIONS, June 7 -- The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) has released its mid-year World Economic Situation and Prospects (WEPS) report, in which it states that the continuous euro crisis remains a large threat to the world economy.

"The euro area debt crisis remains the biggest threat to the global economy," said the representative from the UN Department of Public Information, Newton Kanhema, to reporters during a press conference here on Thursday.

"An escalation of the crisis could result in severe turmoil in financial markets," he said.

The WEPS report reflects that, although some growth has been seen in developed countries, they continue to face significant challenges, particularly in Europe. The WEPS forecasts that the economic situation will "remain tepid" for 2012, with a slow- down in China's growth to an estimated 8.3 percent, while India is expected to grow between 6.7 to 7.2 percent during the 2012- 2013 term.

As a proposed solution to the dwindling global economy, assistant secretary-general for DESA, Jomo Kwame Sundaram, stressed the importance of cooperation between all countries.

"International cooperation is extremely important," said Sundaram. "International cooperation is important, because it will ensure, all countries, and all economies will benefit from [ it]."

As developed countries continue to struggle to bounce back, the report says they have to address four major issues: deleveraging banks, firms and households that continue to restrain normal credit flow; the continuous high rate of unemployment; the fiscal austerity responses to rising public debts; and the exposure of banks to sovereign debts, partnered with weakened economies that prolong the stagnation of the crisis.

The report also stresses that the "re-orientation of fiscal policies should be internationally, coordinated, and aligned with structural policies that support direct job creation, and green growth." -  Xinhua

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related video/articles/posts"

European debt crisis remains biggest threat to world economy – UN report

Unemployment Fuels Debt Crisis Apr 20, 2012

Debt crisis in Europe will affect rest of the world May 21, 2012

The euro crisis just got a whole lot worse May 07, 2012

UNCTAD conference starts amid Uncertainty

The 13th UNCTAD conference began last weekend with an impressive turnout of political leaders but there are tense undercurrents below the surface calm.

THE ministerial meeting of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) kicked off to a good start last Saturday with an opening session marked by a modern play and dance depicting the inequalities of the modern world, and with speeches by an impressive group of political leaders, including the Emir of Qatar, the President of Tunisia who came to power in the wake of the Arab Spring, and the Prime Ministers of Turkey and Bangladesh.

Most of them stressed the need to rethink the model of economic growth that was driven by a financial system that is now seen as dysfunctional and by a pattern of development that may be economically and environmentally unsustainable.

This is echoed in the theme of the UNCTAD conference, known as UNCTAD XIII because it is the 13th in a series of high-level sessions, held once in four years, since the founding in 1964 of this most important of United Nations development organisation.

The UNCTAD XIII theme is “Development-led globalisation: Towards sustainable and inclusive development paths.”

The conference report of the UNCTAD secretary-general, Supachai Panitchpakdi, speaks of a “world turned upside down”.

Much of it criticised the way globalisation had been driven by speculative finance, which has destabilised the world economy but also damaged development in developing countries.

The report advocated the start of a new era, of a development-led globalisation in which the state has to resume its leading role in development, with a new North-South deal based on taming the financial sector, turning trade and investment towards development, managing new threats and there is more democratic governance of the world economy.

Many sessions have already been held, with ministers, business leaders and academics debating investment promotion and investment agreements, the global environment influencing development, trade and poverty.

On Sunday, the UN General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, opened the main plenary, re-affirming the leading role of UNCTAD on trade and development issues in the UN system.

However, below the surface calm, there is an undercurrent of a tense atmosphere because of the uncertainties surrounding the main outcome of UNCTAD XIII, a declaration of ministers that spells out the main issues of the present and the main functions of UNCTAD in future.

The latest draft of this declaration, dated April 21, shows how far the countries are from agreement on many issues, both in stating the problems the world faces and in the future role of UNCTAD on these issues.

It is evident from this draft that developed countries, especially the group known as JZ (that includes the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland), are proposing to delete or severely dilute the text in many areas.

If their proposals are accepted, the future role of UNCTAD may be seriously curtailed.

This is being resisted by developing countries and their Group of 77 and China, which want to retain UNCTAD’s mandate to work on its present broad range of issues.

The most notable divisions, along North-South lines, are the following:

The G77 wants UNCTAD XIII to reaffirm the Accra Accord of 2008 adopted at the previous UNCTAD session, and to build on it. This will allow UNCTAD to continue work on all the issues it presently deals with.

However, the JZ group wants to delete “reaffirm” and keep “builds upon”, implying that there is no agreement to maintain the present mandate.

The text has only two simple paragraphs on the financial crisis, and the need to connect finance to the real economy, which JZ wants to delete. JZ and the European Union also want to delete another paragraph on the role of UNCTAD to contribute to the UN’s work in addressing the causes and effects of the economic crisis.

The paragraphs on the work of UNCTAD on debt, debt restructuring and responsible lending are also being diluted or deleted by developed countries.

The JZ group wants to delete UNCTAD’s work in servicing the GSTP, the South-South trade preference scheme of developing countries.

There is only one paragraph referring to UNCTAD’s work on intellectual property and development. The JZ and EU propose deletion of this.

Similarly JZ proposes deletion of the only reference to the important role of industrial policies.

There is also deletion or dilution of UNCTAD’s work on environment and sustainable development, such as climate change and the follow up to the Rio Plus 20 summit.

Other areas of dilution include food and agriculture, preferences to least developed countries, technology transfer, traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

At a meeting of Ministers of the G77 and China on April 20, it was agreed that the developing countries’ group will maintain its stand that the Accra Accord be reaffirmed and that there should be no dilution of the issues.

This is to be expected, because the G77 and China consider UNCTAD to be their organisation. Indeed, it was the formation of UNCTAD in 1964 that led to the birth of the G77 and China itself.

A puzzling question is why some of the developed countries are so adamant on eroding the mandate and work of UNCTAD.

It is well known that UNCTAD is not the developed countries’ favourite organisation, since its secretariat has continuously produced research that flies in the face of the orthodox policies of organisations they control, especially the World Bank and IMF.

But then the work of UNCTAD, which has often proved correct, is even more important today, when the old economic theories are crumbling and the traditional policies are being reviewed.

UNCTAD has proved it can contribute immensely to the new ideas so much needed.

What if there is no agreement on the draft Declaration?

That would be a setback not only to UNCTAD but the whole framework of international cooperation, which is also much needed in these turbulent times for the global economy.

Thus, it is hoped that all the countries at UNCTAD XIII will this week agree on a good declaration in Doha.

GLOBAL TRENDS BY MARTIN KHOR

Raise the red flag, cut out the hypocrisy!

Raise the red flag

On The Beat By WONG CHUN WAI

Cut out the hypocrisy in the anti-palm oil campaign.

THERE’S no such thing as a national tree in Malaysia but if ever there has to be one, I would propose the oil palm tree. It may have originated from elsewhere, like the rubber tree, but it has been a miracle tree for this country.

Many Malaysians are aware that palm oil is used as raw material for cooking oil and soap but not many would know that it is also used in the making of instant noodles, cookies, biscuits, candles, washing powder and even medical and cosmetic products, including anti-ageing applications.

Even the tree’s trunks can be used for making furniture.

Palm oil can also be used to create biodiesel. Since 2007, all diesel sold in Malaysia must contain 5% palm oil, putting us at the forefront of promoting biodiesel.

But more importantly, the Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60bil in 2010. This was an increase of RM10bil from 2009. Revenue is projected to reach RM80bil and the perception is that the industry will eventually be the country’s biggest money earner.

The income generated by the high price of palm oil has led to a mini economic boom in rural townships throughout the country and benefited the ordinary people.

In simple language, it means an assurance of jobs and income, with a guaranteed daily wage of RM90 in rural areas where the cost of living is low.

In contrast, as shown in some studies, the rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere RM7 per day and employment is sometimes limited or seasonal.

The fact is that while over one billion people have scarce access to food and jobs globally, in Malaysia, we rely on 300,000 foreigners to take on jobs we shun. This includes jobs in the palm oil industry.

In Malaysia, our concern is not lack of food but how to cut down on intake of carbohydrates to reduce our waistline. Slimming centres have become a multi-million ringgit business because of this.



For the foreign labourers working in oil palm plantations here, their employment means there will be food daily for over a million family members in Indonesia, Bangla­desh, the Philippines and other countries.

Oil palm is also important for the Malaysian smallholders and the retail business, which will enjoy the trickle-down effect. And the Government will gain as well, through the collection of corporate taxes, which are then used for education, health and infrastructure development.

It means a lot for the children of the smallholders and foreign workers who know they won’t have to go to bed hungry each night.

Over the past few months, however, their livelihood has been threatened by Western non-governmental organisations who have stepped up their campaign against Malaysia’s palm oil industry.

This time, they have widened their target audience to include even primary school children in the United States, Europe and Australia.

If the argument in the past was about health, this time the campaign has shifted towards the purported deforestation of land and the killing of orang utan. Naturally, these issues would be more emotionally appealing and fashionable given the global concern for environmental issues.

No one in his right mind would argue against protecting the environment but the red flag, rather than the green flag, has to be raised when the real issue is whether these NGOs are being funded by lobbyists from the soy bean, sunflower and other seed oil competitors.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, really. Orang utans may have been affected but look at the shocking decline in the number of koalas in Australia as a result of human clearing and other factors.

It has been reported that the number of koalas has dropped by 95% since the 1990s and that only 43,000 of these tree-dwelling marsupial are left on the mainland. In southeast Queensland, the number has dropped from 25,000 to 4,000 in a decade. Just Google for more information.

Even the world’s 1.5 billion cows are being blamed. There’s a 400-page report quoting the United Nations, which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as a huge threat to the climate, forests and wild life. And they are being blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, too, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, surveys the damage done by cows, sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.

Livestock is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together – and there’s a lot of cows and sheep in Australia, I believe.

The Independent newspaper in Britain reported that burning fuel to produce fertilisers to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it, and clearing vegetation for grazing, produces 9% of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

And wind and manure from livestock account for more than one-third of emissions of another gas, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

But I feel that the greatest contributor to global warming has been left out – the great appetite of developed countries for fossil fuel, which is essential for their continued economic performance. The need to continue their lifestyle contributes to the huge emission of CO2.

It makes them look intelligent talking about orang utan and deforestation in exotic Borneo, which many might not even be able to locate on the map, while drinking Dom Perignon at fancy parties after being dropped off by chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines. 

Malaysia Day: Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance!

Tweet

Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance

WHY NOT?  By WONG SAI WAN saiwan@thestar.com.my

It’s time to recognise the date our country was actually formed so that we can truly be a single nation.

THIS Aug 31 must have been the quietest ever in our 54-year history since independence from the British – no grand parades, no multi-million ringgit fireworks display and no days of closed roads to cater for all sorts of rehearsals.

Instead, the streets of Kuala Lumpur were empty as city folks deserted the Klang Valley for their hometowns over the Hari Raya Aidilfitri holidays.

The Government realised that it would have been practically impossible – and very unpopular – to stage the Merdeka Day celebrations as usual because it would fall on the second day of the Raya celebrations.

Even if they could have forced the civil servants, soldiers, police and other uniformed units to participate in a parade, there would not have been anyone to witness any of the festivities.

Instead, the celebrations will now be held on Sept 16 to coincide with Malaysia Day – that is the exact day 48 years ago Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia.

Decades ago, the whole nation used to observe Malaysia Day but later, in the 1970s, it was only left to Sabah and Sarawak to do so.

It would not be far wrong to say the separation of Singapore from the Federation in 1965 left a bitter taste in many in the ruling Government, thus making it difficult to continue to commemorate that date.

However, things have changed recently. The rising political importance of Sabah and Sarawak has made it necessary for the Government to celebrate the formation of Malaysia.

For years, the people in the two states have been grumbling as to why they should celebrate Aug 31 when it was not the date they gained independence; they would rather celebrate the day they joined the Federation.

After being independent from the British for over 54 years, it is time that we as a nation focus on celebrating the formation of the whole country.

Our leaders – past and present and from both sides of the political divide – have often paid lip service that we have to practise integration between the Peninsula and the two states on Kalimantan island.

The time for lip service is over and it is time for action, and we can start by making Sept 16 the permanent celebration of our nationhood.

We should celebrate how far we have come along, we should celebrate our achievements as a country, and we should celebrate how we are more united now than we were 48 years ago.



We should not forget about Aug 31; after all it is the day Malaya became a country. It is an important day in history and maybe it should be a day of remembrance while Sept 16 be the day of celebration.

Over the past few years, Aug 31 has become the day of flying the flag and show of patriotism, and somehow this Wednesday felt really different without all the jingoism about the need to show we are Malaysians.

In many ways, what we had been doing for Aug 31 was a bit contrived. We now need to bring back the true meaning of what it is to be Malaysian, and to allow that expression of patriotism to be real and from the heart.

After all, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had used 1Malaysia as his rallying call to unite the people. Making Sept 16 a permanent celebration date will surely be a step in the right direction for him.

Last year, he announced that Sept 16 would henceforth be a Federal holiday.

Historically, Malaysia was to have been formed on June 1, 1963, but the date was later postponed to Aug 31, 1963, to coincide with the sixth Merdeka Day.
Image via Wikipedia
As we all know, that did not happen because Indonesia and the Philippines objected to the formation of Malaysia.

The formation date was then postponed again – to Sept 16 – to give the United Nations team time to conduct referendums in Sabah and Sarawak regarding the two states’ participation in a new federation.

Recognising Sept 16 would also mean re-opening certain issues the two states have with the Federal Government over certain points of agreement when joining the Federation.

It is time to take a relook at the issues.

For one thing, I could never understand the need for Immigration procedure for travel between the Peninsula and the two states. Yes, at one time there was a need to control the number of people from the peninsular from grabbing all the job opportunities in Sabah and Sarawak.

Today, the education disparity has narrowed, and in some cases have become even non-existent.

I have met so many capable Sarawakians and Sabahans in my 27-year career in The Star, some of them as colleagues and some people I had interviewed.

In my frequent trips to the two states, I have found that the people there can more than stand up to any Orang Malaya (as Sarawakians call those from the peninsular) or Orang Semenanjung (the Sabahan equivalent) in terms of capabilities and qualification.

There are a reported 50,000 Sarawakians working in the shipyards of Johor, and they have proven to be essential workers for the industry. They have integrated well into Johor society.

This is among the many reasons we have for reinstating Malaysia Day. The following is a ditty I wrote to greet all my friends on Facebook and Twitter:

We have had KongsiRaya.
We have had DeepaRaya.
We have had XmasRaya.
In a few hours MerdekaRaya.
Selamat Hari Raya.
Selamat Hari Merdeka!!

To that I want to add Selamat Hari Malaysia come Sept 16.

■ Executive editor Wong Sai Wan has decided that he will only fly the Jalur Gemilang at his home on Sept 15 and 16 to celebrate the founding of our country.
  
Make Sept 16, Malaysia Day 

I READ “Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance” (The Star, Sept 2) and fully agree with columnist Wong Sai Wan that we should celebrate Malaysia Day, which marks the formation of our country.

I have often admired the way the Americans celebrate their Independence Day on July 4 with barbeques, picnics and family gatherings.

I often wonder why we don’t do the same here in Malaysia. We have an official parade on Merdeka Day and some patriotic flag-waving and that’s about it.

Most Malaysians would rather take the opportunity to go on holiday overseas, or go shopping at the malls.

An occasion to remind ourselves of what makes this a wonderful country, to connect with our fellow Malaysians, and to forge a common destiny is lost.

An opportunity to be thankful for our independence and sovereignty is forgotten.

My friend Eddin Khoo would say this is because we don’t have “a common language of nationhood” – we did not have to really struggle together for our independence. Malaysia is unique in that it is made up of diverse peoples, with diverse histories, cultures, religions, and races, which makes it even
more difficult to achieve national unity.

I am an optimist, and I believe each of us has a part to play in nation-building. Yes, this is far from a perfect country, but we must make the most of our situation.

We have to start by looking at the cup as being half full rather than being half empty.

Let’s be thankful for our wonderful diversity of culture, race, religion – which gives us this delicious rojak of food, arts, architecture, clothing, etc.

Let’s be thankful that we live in a country unscarred by war and unburdened by natural disasters.

Let us celebrate all that is good about this country. Let us work together to make this country better and fairer for all. Let us treat each other with respect, sincerity and compassion.

It is said that “men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her”. Let us love our country.

It was with these thoughts in mind that my friends and I celebrated Malaysia Day last year by organising a street festival at Bangkung Row, Bangsar, where we had food stalls, NGO booths, cultural performances, talks, art exhibitions etc.

This Sept 16, we will again celebrate Malaysia Day at Bangkung Row, with a series of talks and discussions on topics such as: “The Voices of the Moderates”, “Constructed Landscapes” (a talk by artists Anurendra Jegadeva and Yee I-Lann), “In Bed with Malaysia – Exposing the Rakyat’s Sexuality”, “Prejudice and Stereotyping”, “Conversation on Culture with Farish Noor and Eddin Khoo”, “Found in Malaysia”, “Malaysian Writing in English”, “Undi Malaysia”, “Environmental Debate”, etc.

We will also be having Malaysian food and handicraft stalls, over 20 NGO booths, and wonderful performances such as dikir tewas with 100 performers all the way from Kelantan (with the legendary Daud Bukit Abal), Sabahan and Sarawakian dances, Orang Asal nose flute performance, acrobatic lion dance, local singers (including Amirah Ali and Azmyl Yunor), and a grand Jom Joget party with the famous Rozells from Penang (singing P. Ramlee, Jimmy Boyle, Teresa Teng, etc, tunes) to end the evening.

Do come and join us in celebrating Malaysia Day at Bangkung Row.

I hope all Malaysians will start their own Malaysia Day celebrations, whether it is a street party in your neighbourhood or a pot luck dinner at home with family and friends or lighting a candle for peace in our country.

What is important is that we take the opportunity to celebrate this wonderful country, and all that is good and wonderful about it.

Selamat Hari Malaysia.

ED SOO,
Petaling Jaya.

Related posts:

Malaya, look east to boost Malaysian racial unity!    

Malaysia's future: A time for Malay renewal ! 

Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence  
The true meaning of independence 
Reviving our winning ways