Share This

Showing posts with label US Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Friday, 21 June 2019

US hypocritical in accusing China of tech theft

Photo: IC
https://youtu.be/tGD072hQGP8

 

The US has no lack of a “criminal record” in terms of technology theft.


 The US has repeatedly ignored China's innovative breakthroughs through self-reliance and hard work but accuses China of "stealing" US technology and intellectual property rights. These arguments do not hold water.

These absurd accusations imply that the US must be the absolute leader in technological innovation - only the US is qualified to make major breakthroughs while others should merely follow its lead and import its technology, otherwise they are "stealing." Such logic is ridiculous.

A country's technological innovation capability is closely related to its scientific research resources, such as talents, capital, and scientific experimental devices. Leading scientific research resources have determined the US leading position in various science and technology fields. Nonetheless, economies including the EU, China, Japan, Russia and India have also mastered considerable scientific research resources and developed technological innovation capabilities with their own characteristics and advantages.

It is due to such relatively scattered distribution of global research resources that the US can never be an "all-round champion" of technological innovation. It is natural that other countries will catch up with the US in certain fields.

Historically, the US made a great fortune during WWII, and out-competed the Soviet Union in terms of comprehensive national strength during the Cold War. Even so, the US failed to gain absolute dominance over the Soviet Union in technological innovation.

As a major technological innovator keeping pace with the US, the Soviet Union set multiple world records in its golden age. The world's first nuclear power plant, artificial earth satellite, manned spacecraft, space station and intercontinental missiles were all built by the Soviet Union. As far as weapons and equipment are concerned, both the Soviet Union and the US had something in which they excelled. Even now, Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, surpasses the US in some respects.

The US made its first nuclear power plant, artificial satellite, manned spacecraft, and intercontinental missiles after the Soviet Union's success. Based on its current logic, should these US cutting-edge technologies be regarded as something stolen from the Soviet Union?

There are more examples. China led the US in the processing power of supercomputers for many years. In June 2018, the US retook the world's lead thanks to its machine "Summit" which could process 200,000 trillion calculations per second. By following US logic, should we say the US surpassed China by stealing China's supercomputing technology?

Some have already noted that the US is actually the guilty party that files the suit first. The country has no lack of a "criminal record" in terms of technology theft. In the first decades after its founding, the US tried hard to "steal" advanced industrial technology from the UK to develop its own industries.

During WWII, prior to Germany's surrender, the US established the Alsos Mission. The team was sent to Germany not to fight, but to capture top German scientists and their technologies ahead of the Soviet Union. It is said that Wernher von Braun, one of the founders of the US space program, was a leading figure in Nazi Germany's rocket development program.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US took the opportunity to obtain advanced military technology that the Soviet Union had accumulated for years and to lure away many top technical talents.

After that, plenty of US weapons benefited from the Soviet Union's technology to varying degrees, which saved the US time and money. The US technology theft from the Soviet Union has produced generous returns.

However, the US is not ashamed of such records. Many Hollywood blockbusters have molded American spies conducting such theft into the embodiment of justice, and molded theft into a just act. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that the US is now judging others by itself.

In recent years, China has continued to increase investment in science and technology. In 2018, the country's research and development funds amounted to nearly 2 trillion yuan ($290 billion), second only to the US. The efforts will naturally pay off.

Nevertheless, the US deliberately turned a blind eye to China's efforts to promote independent innovation and contain China's development. The past actions and current absurd logic of the US are being seen through.

Source link 


Innovation is a driving force within China's economy today. Yet behind that innovation, what's the role of research and development?


https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI
https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI?t=199



Related posts:


The Sino-US trade dispute is not only a game between representatives of the two countries at the negotiating table, but also a cont...

https://youtu.be/7_kKAiHjJyY They say a good conversation could be just like drinking a cup of black coffee and as stimulating as it is...

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

US hypocrisy in international relations

US President Barack Obama deplanes upon his arrival at the Royal Malaysian Airforce base to attend the 27th Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Subang, outside Kuala Lumpur on November 20, 2015. - AFP

Issues of good governance, democracy and human rights will always be low on the agenda of any country when dealing in foreign affairs.

THE first American president to visit us was Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. His reasons for visiting were probably the same as President Barack Obama’s: security (although in those days it was about the “threat” of Vietnam and the feared domino effect of nations falling under the thrall of Communism, whereas now it’s Islamic State) and economy (although then it was probably more about ensuring we keep on supplying tin and rubber whereas now it’s about keeping us from being too influenced by China).

Whenever the President of the United States visit another country, he is bound to make waves of some sort. According to oral history (i.e. my mum and dad), when LBJ came here all sorts of craziness ensued, like the inexplicable chopping-down of strategic trees; as though some renegade monkey was going to throw himself at the presidential convoy.

Our Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman, wasn’t too fussed about the visit, saying that Johnson needn’t have come at all.

Obama’s visit wasn’t quite as colourful, with security measures being limited to thousands of guns and the closing of the Federal Highway (no more monkeys in KL) and all our leaders expectedly excited and giddy.

What I found interesting about Mr Obama’s trip is his consistent request to meet with “the youth” and civil society. He did it the last time he was here and he did it again this time.

This is all well and good; he’s quite a charming, intelligent fellow and he says soothing things. So what if he gave us a couple of hours of traffic hell (in this sense, the American Presidency is fair for he treats his citizens and foreigners alike: I have been reliably informed that whenever Obama visits his favourite restaurant in Malibu, the whole town is gridlocked by security measures. What, you can’t do take away, Barack?).

Anyway, I see no harm in all these meetings. But then neither do I see any good. At least not any real and lasting good, apart from perhaps the thrill of meeting one of the most powerful people on earth and having him say things that match your own world view.

The world of social media went a bit loopy when a young man at the “town hall meeting” with youths asked the President to raise issues of good governance with our Prime Minister, to which he replied that he would. And maybe he did, but at the end of the day, so what?

Frankly that’s all he will do, a bit of lip service, because issues of good governance, democracy and human rights will always be low on the agenda of any country when dealing in international affairs. They may make a big song and dance about it, but they don’t really care.

And before you accuse me of anti-Americanism, I believe this applies to most, if not all, countries. The Americans like us because we appear to be hard in the so-called “war on terror”.

They need us, not because we are such a huge trading partner, but because they want us on their side (by way of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) in the economic battles that they have been, and will be, continuing to fight against China.

We see this behaviour of putting self-interest over any sort of serious stand on principle happening again and again. Why is it that the United Nations Security Council did nothing when Saddam Hussein massacred thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons, but took hurried military action when he invaded Kuwait?

Perhaps it is because at the time of the Kurdish genocide, Saddam was fighting Iran which was deemed by some, at least, as the great enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is a genocidal butcher.

It is trite to mention the hypocrisies abound in international relations. Anyone with the vaguest interest in world affairs can see it. To expect any less is naïve.

Besides, there is another danger of having a big power like the US mess around with our national problems. If they do so, it will be all too easy for the rabid so-called nationalists amongst us to scream that foreign intervention is leading to loss of sovereignty and national pride. Their “patriotism” will muddy the waters, adding issues to confuse people when there need not be any added issues at all.

The point of this article is this – for those of us who want to create a nation with true democracy and respect for human rights, we’re on our own folks.

By Azman Sharom brave new world The Star/Asia News Network

Azmi Sharom (azmi.sharom@gmail.com) is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:


People pose in front of a display showing the word 'cyber' in binary code, in this picture illustration taken in Zenica December 2...

Sunday, 5 October 2014

The Bridled protest: Hong Kongers' free will shall not be held hostage to protestors


Pro-democracy protesters flash lights during a rally to protest the violence seen in Mong Kok, in Hong Kong, China, 4 October 2014. - EPA/ALEX HOFFORD

The Bridled protest

Despite the tension in Hong Kong, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes.

THERE has been plenty of restraint by both the protest movement and the authorities in Hong Kong. The threat by some student leaders to storm government buildings did not take place after the midnight deadline on Thursday.

If the international media still expect to see a serious clash between the protesters and the police, then I believe they will be disappointed.

Beijing must surely be aware that the world is watching. They would never want a repeat of the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 where many protesters, mostly students, were reportedly killed. Until today, no one knows exactly the actual number of casualties.

The Chinese government has also not used harsh or emotive language except to say that the gathering is illegal and the crowd should disperse. The protesters are angry at China’s plan to vet election candidates for the first direct election of the chief executive in 2017.

Beijing had ruled at the end of August that while Hong Kong residents would have a vote, their choice of candidates would be restricted by a committee. The protest began on Sept 22 when student groups launched a week-long boycott of classes.

On Sept 28, Occupy Central and student protests joined forces and took over central Hong Kong in what is now dubbed as the “umbrella revolution”.

Despite the tension, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes.

The protest was orderly, and quite extraordinary, based on the news reports which showed how protesters collected garbage and separated them into recycling bins and how the police held up placards warning of impending tear gas action. And there was even a poignant picture of a policeman helping a protester hit by tear gas.

There are good reasons – the people of  Hong Kong are fully aware that nothing that they demand, at least for now, will be fulfilled immediately. They are practical people but they want their voices to be heard by Beijing.

The people have also accepted the fact that Hong Kong is part of China. The British returned Hong Kong to China in 1997 and nothing is going to change that. The future of Hong Kong is in the hands of China – not the United Kingdom or the United States.

But the locals are also angry at the huge number of mainlanders crowding into tiny Hong Kong. The pressure on the housing, health and education sectors has led to great resentment.

There are plenty of video clips on YouTube posted by Hong Kong people on what they see as the crass and rude behaviour of the less-polished mainlanders, which ranges from eating in the underground train to defecating in the streets to loud chattering. These have led to scuffles between Hong Kong people and mainland tourists and these are well documented.

There has been retaliation, in the apparent clash of cultures, except for the fact that both are ethnically Chinese. One professor appeared on Chinese TV and called the people of Hong Kong names while claiming that they were paying homage to London. He also hammered the Hong Kong people for preferring to speak Cantonese instead of Mandarin.

On the other hand, advertisements have appeared in Hong Kong newspapers, referring to the mainlanders as locusts who hog the resources of Hong Kong.

As far back as January, the South China Morning Post had reported on protesters who marched along Canton Road, a luxury shopping street that is a popular destination for mainland tourists, holding up signs that read “Go Back to China” and “Reclaim Hong Kong”.

Xenophobia seems like an oxymoron because the Hong Kong residents and the mainlanders are all Chinese and belong to the same country.

Ironically, Hong Kong’s retail sector is crying at the missed business opportunities of the Oct 1 China national day. This is when mainlanders flock to Hong Kong for long holidays and, of course, to dine and shop. This time they have stayed away as a result of the protests and it is Hong Kong that is paying the price. Shops have been forced to shut because of the protests and businessmen are blaming the student leaders.

In fact, Beijing does not have to do anything against the protesters. The central government can afford to sit it out because the students will eventually have to go back to classes, the protesters need to report for work, and businesses must go on.

This is Hong Kong after all, where the cost of living is among the highest in the world. Sitting on the road will not last long when there are hefty bills to be paid.

A middle-ground solution to allow both sides to back down without losing face looked possible, but the plan for the students to talk with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam appears to have been scuttled by the clashes in Mongkok.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has said he would not negotiate with the student leaders, nor would he resign.

Now, the students have called off the talks with Lam, claiming that the police had allowed “triad” gangsters to infiltrate their protest camps.

But the talks will have to eventually be held because it is the right thing to do. Any dialogue between them will reflect the genuine desire of both sides to end the impasse. It will also show that Beijing is prepared to hear and respect the voices of the young people in Hong Kong, which is an autonomous territory.

This is an opportunity for the students to put on record that they accept Beijing. The reality is that their anti-communist China slogans, which may be morale-boosting during their protests, won’t change a thing. It is better that these students be practical instead of being too idealistic.

Business Hong Kong will not allow students to lead at the expense of Hong Kong and China, it is as simple as that. The clashes between the students and the traders in Mongkok on Friday are a sign that patience is wearing thin for those who need to earn a living.

Interestingly enough, most of the student leaders in the Tiananmen protest are now growing old in exile in the US, UK and France. Unable to return home, they could never have imagined how Beijing has embraced capitalism and the speed of economic progress as China’s middle class expands.

As academics Chen Dingding and Wang Jianwei of the University of Macau correctly pointed out in an article, “The English word ‘crisis’ in Chinese actually consists of two words: danger and opportunity. A crisis itself is not necessarily a bad thing – it also presents an opportunity to solve the problem.”

I agree. In the case of Hong Kong, it is better that Beijing let Hong Kong grow at its own pace and in its own way. And the people of Hong Kong can protest, but they should not go overboard.

Source: On the beat Wong Chun Wai The Star/Asia News Network

Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 27 years in various capacities and roles. He is now the group's managing director/chief executive officer and formerly the group chief editor.
On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.


Hong Kongers' free will shall not be held hostage to protestors

Hong Kong's prosperity and stability are hard-won and should be treasured, while Hong Kongers' free will shall not be held ...

BEIJING, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Hong Kong's prosperity and stability are hard-won and should be treasured, while Hong Kongers' free will shall not be held hostage to those organizers of the Occupy Central movement who have ulterior motives, critics appealed.

Yin Haoliu, a Chinese American freelancer, wrote in an open letter to three initiators of the illegal movement: "Democracy is a step-by-step process that can not be approached in haste, otherwise it will bring about troubles."

"What's wrong with the Communist Party of China which hopes to see a person who loves China and loves Hong Kong elected as Hong Kong's chief executive? Are you willing to choose a chief executive that sells Hong Kong and the whole country?" Yin asked in the letter.

"You should know that on your opposite side are the silent majority... if Hong Kong falls into chaos, you could flee to foreign countries, but how about the ordinary Hong Kongers that are left behind?" he said.

"Christopher Francis Patten said the decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Aug. 31 that granted universal suffrage in Hong Kong was false...then was he himself as the governor of Hong Kong elected by the Hong Kong people?" the retired doctor said.

Yin said Hong Kong had tided through numerous difficulties with full support of the Chinese mainland since the Basic Law was put into practice, so the initiators of Occupy Central should treasure the city's current prosperity and stability.

On Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow hopes that stability will resume as soon as possible in Hong Kong.

"Events in Hong Kong belong to China's internal affairs. Russia hopes the stability of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) would be resumed as soon as possible," the ministry's information and press department told Xinhua.

Singapore's Foreign Minister Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam said in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao that many reports on Hong Kong made by the Western media were untrue and biased to China.

They intentionally ignored a fact that Hong Kong had never implemented a democratic system under the British rule for some 150 years, he said, adding that Beijing's plan has granted Hong Kong much more democratic space than what Hong Kongers got in the times of British-ruled Hong Kong.

"Everyone shall be clear about one point, that is, what the central government did conforms with Hong Kong's Basic Law," the foreign minister said.

He said Hong Kong is deeply dependent on the Mainland, including employment and livelihood.

Even though a little anti-Mainland sentiment appeared in Hong Kong, the central government is still generous to Hong Kong, he added.

Jeff Bader, who ran Obama's first term White House East Asia policy, told the Washington Post that for Beijing, there is no room for compromise on issues such as Chinese stability and the leadership of the Communist Party of China.

He also mentioned that millions of Hong Kongers will not support or tolerate the protest that grinds the city to halt for days.

The negative impact of Occupy Central includes a bit of a brain drain, Bader predicted.

Hong Kong has been partially paralysed by the large-scale protests that started on Sept. 28.

A large number of Occupy protesters have taken over major streets in Mong Kok, one of the city's most bustling areas, for at least four days, which has seriously affected businesses of local shops, restaurants and vendors, and forced schools and banks to be closed.

Friday afternoon, some anti-Occupy people clashed with Occupy protesters in Mong Kok and Causeway Bay, Hong Kong's two major commercial areas. Several people were injured during the clashes.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying gave an urgent TV broadcast Friday evening, calling on all citizens, no matter what attitude they may have toward the Occupy movement, to keep calm and not to use violence or disrupt public order under any circumstances.

Related:

Hong Kong CE calls for peace after clashes

HONG KONG, Oct. 3 (Xinhua) -- Hong Kong's Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying gave an urgent TV broadcast on Friday evening calling for peace after Occupy protesters clashed with anti-Occupy people in Mong Kok and Causeway Bay, Hong Kong's two major commercial areas.

Leung called on all citizens, no matter what attitude they have toward the Occupy, they have to keep calm, and not use violence or disrupt order under any situation. Full story

Chinese public voice opposition againt HK Occupy Central

BEIJING, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Chinese people from all walks of life have voiced their strong denouncement and opposition against the illegal gatherings of the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong over these days.

The Occupy Central movement has seriously affected the social order in Hong Kong and runs counter to the rule of law, said Beijing citizen Zhao Qing. Full story.

Firmly safeguard rule of law in HK: People's Daily

BEIJING, Oct. 3 -- Democracy and the rule of law are interdependent, and a democracy without the rul[Read it]

Monday, 14 July 2014

US biased in push for S.China Sea ‘freeze’

U.S. Navy personnel raise their flag during CARAT 2014. The United States and the Philippines kicked off joint naval exercises in the South China Sea near waters claimed by Beijing, amid tense territorial rows between China and its neighbors. AP/Noel Celis

Speaking at the US Department of State's Annual South China Sea Conference on Friday, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Michael Fuchs said the claimants to territorial rights in the region should "freeze" provocative actions and "could recommit not to establish new outposts" as agreed in the Declaration of Conduct (DoC) signed between ASEAN countries and China in 2002. These suggestions appear to be fair, but even Western media has opined that this is aimed at deterring China. Only the day before, the US Senate had accused China of aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and urged China for restraint.

If the US called for a "freeze" right after the DoC was signed, that would be all to the good. But Vietnam and the Philippines have since then been exploiting oil and gas within the nine-dash line. The US came up with such views just as China started its own oil explorations. Its partiality is more than obvious.

It's worth pointing out that the US is not a claimant to territorial rights in the South China Sea or a stakeholder in solving territorial disputes. It is a principle that the disputes should be solved by the parties involved.

Yet the US is a superpower which believes every international or regional affair has something to do with it. The Philippines and Vietnam want to draw support from the US to confront China. But the US needs to know that its interference has no basis in international law. If the US is sincere in making a contribution to peace in the South China Sea, it should take into consideration the interests and demands of all parties, including China.

But we doubt Washington's intentions. So far, its moves regarding the South China Sea are like the extension of its pivot to Asia strategy. Many Chinese people feel that the US is making trouble through intervention.

Washington's latest suggestions are a trap for Beijing. This timing is not beneficial for China. If China refuses to accept the suggestions, it can hardly convince the world. This is a farce initiated by the US which wants China to suffer the consequences.

Therefore, China should think about how to mediate with the US to prevent it from irritating us while reaping the gain. China should let the US eat some unexpected bitterness.

Western opinion will quibble about the South China Sea issue for a long time, which will be a challenge for China's diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Safeguarding sovereignty and maintaining a peripheral strategic environment are both important for China. China should try to make a balance.

China must be confident and stick to the following principles: It has the right to safeguard its sovereignty and it has no intention to go to war. China is a regional power that has the initiative to control the conflict. Meanwhile, any country that confronts China has to bear the consequences. Finally, China will not make trouble, but equally is unafraid of any trouble.

Source: Global Times Published: 2014-7-14 0:18:01

Sunday, 29 June 2014

US may repeat same inept blunders that caused lasting Iraq disaster : ISIS, WMD lies!

The deepening crisis in Iraq is a result of mistakes of US Middle East policy under two presidents. Washington does not learn from mistakes, so tensions inevitably will rise in the already disintegrating region.

 WMD lies
The regime change war of the George W. Bush administration against Iraq was arguably the greatest strategic mistake in US history. The consequences continue to unfold.

The Obama administration added fuel to the regional fire by launching the regime change wars against Libya and Syria. The flow of weapons and terrorists links these struggles.

The US public was outraged that the Obama administration considered a direct attack against Syria. The public today is becoming increasingly concerned about US involvement in yet another unnecessary Iraq war.

The present situation in Iraq must be placed in historic context. The British created the country after WWI from three former Ottoman provinces. The British strategic concept involved moving oil from the northern area of Mosul to Haifa in Palestine to be refined and then service the navy in the Mediterranean. Oil from the southern area of Basra was refined to service the navy in the Persian Gulf.

The northern area is one home of the Kurds, who are an ancient non-Arab ethnic group. The central area is traditionally the home of Sunni Arabs while the southern area is traditionally the home of Shiite Arabs.

The possibility of a breakup of this artificial state has always been present as the Kurds seek independence and the Shiite Arabs have religious ties to Iran. An Iraqi national identity was mostly held by secular political forces in the past.

In the aftermath of the war, the US dismantled the ruling Ba'ath political party, which ran the government apparatus. It also destroyed the Iraqi army. These two moves undermined national unity and stability in the post-war period.

The Obama regime change war against Syria has now morphed into a complex mess involving both Syria and Iraq. This explosive situation in turn threatens Jordan and Lebanon.

 ISIS in Iraq
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group with its many foreign fighters is a powerful actor in the present situation. But it must also be said that various Iraqi groups are also involved. These include former Iraqi military, political, and religious networks dissatisfied with the present Shiite-dominated government.

When the US toppled Saddam Hussein, it was inevitable that the next regime would be dominated by the Shiites who are the majority in Iraq. Experts at that time warned against the war, arguing that with Saddam's fall, Iran would become influential in Iraq through Shiite politicians.

The Shiite-dominated Maliki government has been heavy handed toward Sunni Arabs and Kurds. This counterproductive behavior set the stage for the present crisis which has been exploited by outside forces such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. They financially and militarily support the extremist Sunni terrorist organizations attacking the Shiites.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states also support the US regime change war in Syria. Support by these states for Sunni terrorists is part of a larger plan to bring the region under Saudi dominance.

It is no secret in Washington that pro-Israel neoconservatives for decades have been plotting the balkanization of Syria and Iraq. They see this process as good for Israel because it would break up its hostile neighbors into less threatening enclaves.

The results of Washington's incompetence may well provoke Iran into action to protect the Shiites of Iraq. Washington and Tehran may or may not be able to agree on a path forward.

The disintegrating situation in Iraq puts great pressure on Jordan.

Because Jordan is a key ally in the region one would expect Washington to bolster Amman and this could involve military forces.

US politicians have forced war and chaos on the Middle East and have learned nothing. Will Washington's Asian pivot lead to similar results?

- By Clifford A. Kiracofe Source:Global Times Published: 2014-6-26
The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Related:

Obama faces the great Iraq dilemma

Obama didn't get the United States into the mess that is the "war on terror"; on the contrary, he courageously proposed to get Americans out of it.

Related posts:

Video shows man speaking Bahasa Malaysia about going 'to the battlefield'  KUALA LUMPUR: A chilling video of a Malaysian ridi... 
Combating home-grown hate The young must be given opportunities to have modern education so that they can be nurtured to distinguish for...
Iraq desperate for options against ISIS   George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq is now reaping its latest fruits, as uncontrollable viol...

Thursday, 1 May 2014

US shows its true colors: hypocritically abuses principles of UNCLOS to benefit itself !

US hypocritically abuses principles of UNCLOS to benefit itself

The high-profile interventions by the US in the disputes between China and some of its neighbors over some islands or reefs and maritime entitlements in recent years, have seen the US frequent making use of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It seems that according to the US, China has become a violator of UNCLOS.    

The fact is that the disputes between China and some of its neighbors over some islands or reefs fall within the scope of territorial disputes, which are not subject to UNCLOS' regulation and adjustment.

Moreover, China, as a state party to UNCLOS, made a declaration in 2006, which excluded disputes on maritime delimitation and historic title or rights from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures, in accordance with relevant UNCLOS provisions concerning optional exceptions.

The US, which keeps on emphasizing the rule of international law, should be well aware of this background. However, the US has repeatedly distorted UNCLOS to negate China's lawful maritime claims and rights. Anyone with common sense can understand what the US acts mean.  

While the US behaves like a state party to UNCLOS and argumentatively invokes UNCLOS to criticize China, it forgets that it has not ratified UNCLOS itself. As the world's top sea power and significant coastal state, the US, under the excuse that UNCLOS has become part of the customary international law, has enjoyed all the rights given by UNCLOS while choosing to evade the related duties at the same time. This clearly demonstrates the selective and utilitarian attitude of the US toward UNCLOS.  

The US misuse of UNCLOS is also well reflected in its self-granted impunity concerning its maritime military maneuvers. The US possesses ultra-strong naval power and the capacity to control all the world's strategically important maritime locations, and its freedom of navigation and maritime entitlements have never been threatened.

With the development of modern naval weaponry particularly the enhancement of the electronic telecommunication and reconnaissance capabilities, the US has for a long time expanded its maritime and aerial reconnaissance and deterrence activities into other countries' exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the airspace above them, causing disquietude among many developing coastal states, and making the utilization of EEZs for military purposes a highly controversial issue globally.

Washington has made a series of US-style interpretations on UNCLOS' EEZ regime, such as confusing the EEZ with the high seas in its excessive expansion of its naval ships' rights to free movement, misinterpreting the provisions concerning the peaceful use of oceans for an improper assertion that all non-invasive military activities are lawful, arguing that its military ships' close-reconnaissance of other countries' EEZs are hydrological surveys or intelligence collection, and so on.

The self-granted impunity mentioned above fully reveals the unscrupulous US playing with and trampling on UNCLOS.       

And from the perspective of timing, when the US started to put into practice its "pivot to Asia" strategy, it simultaneously began to make an issue of UNCLOS under the circumstances of its not-yet accession into it, and to hype up the East China Sea and South China Sea issues, so as to pave the way for its military "rebalance." 

Rather than adopting a "double standard" in using UNCLOS to realize its selfish interests and "rebalance" other countries, the US, the self-proclaimed defender of regional maritime order and mediator of relevant disputes, should consciously abide by the maritime norms in accordance with the spirit of UNCLOS.

It should  show respect to the joint efforts by China and its neighbors in resolving relevant disputes through consultations and negotiations, and engage more in activities which are conductive to regional peace and stability, maritime cooperation and development.

By Shen Yamei Source: Global Times Published: 2014-4-29 21:43:01
The author is an associate research fellow with Center for Maritime Security and Cooperation Studies, China Institute of International Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

US shows its true colors


Just as many have observed, united States President Barack Obama's Asia visit is essentially about Washington's and its allies' unease about a rising China.

From Tokyo to Manila, Obama has tried to pick his words so as not to antagonize Beijing. But from the US-Japan joint statement to the new US-Philippines defense agreement, it is increasingly obvious that Washington is taking Beijing as an opponent. With Obama reassuring the US' allies of protection in any conflict with China, it is now clear that Washington is no longer bothering to conceal its attempt to contain China's influence in the region. It is even less convincing to say the US pivot to the Asia-Pacific is not targeted against China.

Obama's rhetoric about peace and international law sounds hollow because it contradicts what Washington and himself have been up to. The US-Japan statement, for instance, is a dangerous license for the increasingly rightist Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to provoke more trouble. Its shameless disregard of historical facts and endorsement of Abe's rightist inclinations will only cause further instability.

For a considerably long period, Chinese have cherished the naive thought that Washington will rein in its unruly allies when they go too far.

Obama's current trip should be a wake-up call that this is just wishful thinking. His sweet promises of a new type of major-country relationship should not blind us to the grim geopolitical reality: Ganging up with its troublemaking allies, the US is presenting itself as a security threat to China.


The foremost threat is not the disputes that estrange China from its neighbors such as Japan and the Philippines. It is rather the threatening image of China that is being projected and marketed by these malicious neighbors and their backstage supporter.

Washington's biased portrayal of China and its legitimate territorial claims is conducive to the US' pivot and stronger bonds with its allies. But if the US wants to benefit from the thriving Asia-Pacific, it should promote good-neighborliness.

The further prosperity of the region calls for closer intra-regional connectivity, to which the current tensions are a threat. Washington should try to ease those tensions, instead of fanning them.

Most important of all, Washington must come to terms with the reality that China will continue to grow, though it will not follow the US' hegemonic path.

Washington's best bet lies in collaborating with, not standing against, Beijing before it is too late. - China Daily

Related posts:

US president barack obama may have congratulated himself in private for apparently pulling off a difficult balancing act, but if so, he is...

Obama's Manila visit beefs up Philippines    US President Barack Obama is now in Manila, the last stop of his Asia tour, after h...