Is China still a developing nation?

Tweet

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

Last week, US President Barack Obama said China has ‘grown up’ and must take on the responsibilities of a developed country. But is China already grown up – or is it still a developing country?

 China’s fight to retain its developing country status is of interest to other developing countries, for they will be next if China loses that fight

IS CHINA still a developing country, or has it joined the ranks of the advanced developed countries? This has become a topical question, especially after US Presi-dent Barack Obama reportedly told Chinese President Hu Jintao last week that China had to act more responsibly now that it has “grown up”.

This interesting conversation took place at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Summit in Hawaii. And when Obama met Chinese premier Wen Jiabao at the East Asia Summit hosted by Asean in Bali last week, he must have said something similar, in between chiding him for not allowing the Chinese currency to shoot up.

By telling China that it has become a grown-up, Obama meant that China should now be treated just like the US or Europe in terms of international obligations – like taking on binding commitments to reduce greenhouse house gas emissions, cutting its tariffs to near zero and giving up its subsidies under the World Trade Organisation, giving aid to poor countries and letting its currency float.

This is what the US has been pressurising China to do in the recent negotiations in climate change, in the WTO’s Doha talks, at various meetings of the United Nations and at the Apec summit.

In fact, most of the important multilateral negotiations are stalled because the US (with Europe and Japan standing behind it) insists that China gives up its developing country status and takes on the obligations of a developed country.

It is not only China, of course. They also want India and Brazil to do likewise. And often also mentioned are South Africa and the wealthier or bigger Asean countries.

The main focus, however, is China. There has been growing respect for – or, rather, fear of – China, that it is growing so fast and has become so big and powerful it might swallow up the Western world in a decade or two.



So, the question is pertinent. Is China a developed country?

The answer depends on what criteria are used. In absolute terms, China is indeed a big economy. Its GNP is second only to that of the United States. It has become the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, having overtaken the United States.

But this is mainly because China is a big country in terms of population. With 1.3 billion people, it is the world’s most populous country.

However, despite the mighty image it has been given by the world media, China looks like a very ordinary developing country once we look at per capita indicators.

Whether one is a developed or developing country is defined by the UN and by the IMF and World Bank, and the most important criterion is income per capita.

By that yardstick, China is very much a developing country.

The International Monetary Fund, in its latest World Economic Outlook, classifies China as a developing country, with a per capita Gross Domes­­-tic Product last year of US$4,382 (RM13,852), ranked a lowly 91 of 184 countries in the world.

Six African countries (Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa, Namibia) had GDP per capita levels higher than China.

China’s GDP per capita was less than a tenth that of the United States, which had US$46,860 (RM148,129). Luxembourg had the highest ranking, US$108,952 (RM344,408). Ma­­laysia was No. 65 at US$8,423 (RM26,626) and Singapore No. 15 at US$43,117 (RM136,297).

Economists also use the measure of GNP per capita “in gross purchasing power” (GPP). This is to take into account the different costs of living in different countries. People living in countries with a lower cost of living could enjoy a higher li- ving standard than their country’s GNP implies.

Last year, in GDP (at GPP) per capita terms, China was lower still at No. 95 with US$7,544 (RM23,847), just below Ecuador and just above Albania, El Salvador and Guyana.

By contrast, Malaysia was at No. 58 with GPP per capita of US$14,744 (RM46,607) while Singapore was No. 3 with US$56,694 (RM179,295).

The UN Development Programme has a human development index (HDI) that measures quality of life in terms of income, schooling, life expectancy and so on.

The Human Development Report 2011 shows China at No. 101 of 187 countries with a HDI of 0.687 and in a category of “medium human development”.

What about climate change? China, again mainly because of its huge population, is the top greenhouse gas emitting country, with a total of 7,232 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2005. The US is second with 6,914 Mtonnes. India was fifth with 1,859 Mtonnes.

But in per capita terms, China’s emissions level was 5.5 CO2-equivalent per person, ranked 84 in the world. By contrast, the US’ per capita emission was 23.4 CO2 equivalent, Australia’s 27.3, Russia’s 13.7, Ger­many’s 11.9, Japan’s 10.5, Singa­pore’s 11.4, Malaysia’s 9.2, South Africa’s 9.0, Brazil’s 5.4, Indonesia’s 2.7, India’s 1.7 and Rwanda’s 0.4.

Thus, as No. 91 country in the world in GDP per capita, No. 101 in human development index and No. 84 in per capita emissions, China is looking like, and is, a middle-level or even lower-middle level developing country, with not only all the developed countries ahead of it, but also many developing countries, too.

China also shares the same characteristics of many developing countries. More than 700 million of its 1.3 billion people live in the rural areas, and in 2008 there was a large imbalance, with the urban disposable household income 3.3 times bigger on average than in rural areas.

According to China’s own standard, 43 million Chinese are low-income (below US$160 (RM506) a year). By the higher UN standard, 150 million people are poor, living on less than US$1 (RM3.16) a day.

Each year, 12 million people are newly added to the job market, outnumbering the population of Greece, and it is quite a task to find them jobs.

This does not deny the fact that there are high points in China’s development: its big GNP in absolute terms, its high rate of economic growth, the foreign reserves of above US$3 trillion (RM9.5 trillion).

But the fact remains that while China has become a big economic power in absolute terms, it is still a middle-level developing country, with the socio-economic problems that most developing countries have.

And if China is pressurised to take on the duties of a developed country and to forgo its status and benefits of a developing country, then many other developing countries that are ahead of China (at least in per capita terms) may soon be also asked to do the same.

Thus China’s fight to retain its developing country status is of interest to other developing countries, for they will be next if China loses that fight.

G20, Apec without gusto; Asean for peace; US cold war against China!

Tweet

G-20, Apec summits – without gusto!

What Are We To Do By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

WHEN President Sarkozy of France assumed the presidency of G-20 for 2011, I was delighted for alas, international monetary reform would take centre stage. That's what he promised. I felt it's high time leadership was put to bear on an issue of critical international concern, where the Americans had for years “ feared to tread,” for obvious reasons: to protect US national interest to preserve (as long as feasible) an archaic international monetary system with the US dollar as its centrepiece and which has outlasted its usefulness.

But this was not to be. Political turmoil in Greece had added fuel to the European financial chaos, with the G-20 meeting scrambling to arrange (and rearrange) emergency measures aimed at preventing the eurozone sovereign debt crisis from contaminating the rest of Europe and the global economy. As they gathered in Cannes on Nov 3-4, leaders from G-20 faced high expectations to confront the festering European turmoil. Instead, the two-day summit in this Mediterranean resort largely resulted in more pressure on Europe to respond more forcefully. The United States, China and others were worried that Europeans may fail to avert a collapse of the Greek economy, bringing with it sovereign default and corporate bankruptcies that would inevitably send shock waves through the global financial system. Priority was placed to quickly resolve the evolving European crisis. It was clear the weight of the crisis had overshadowed other policy goals of the summit.

G-20 and France

France's president had hoped to use the G-20 to burnish his reputation as a global statesman. I gathered Sarkozy had intended to focus the G-20 agenda on French ideas for reducing global imbalances. Instead, he found himself in the midst of a gathering euro-storm, now focused on Greece's sudden decision to call a referendum on its bailout.

Behind the scene, France was itself subject to growing economic stress. The market's verdict on France's finances had since grown increasingly harsh. The spread between the yields on German & French 10-year AAA government bonds widened to a euro-era record of 1.95%-age points. France is a triple-A rated nation in name only because its debt is in danger of spiralling out of control.

Forecast by Fitch Ratings at 86.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, it is the highest among AAA-rated nations. Its recent sharp economic downturn has exposed an 8-billion-euro gap in France's efforts to reduce its budget deficit to 4.5% of GDP in 2012 from 7.1% in 2010 more than twice the permissible limit of 3%. At 45% of GDP, France is already among the most highly taxed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or the OECD. The recent report by the Lisbon Council ranked France 13th out of 17 for its overall health, including growth potential, unemployment and consumption, and 15th for progress on economic adjustments, including reducing the budget deficit and unit labour cost.

G-20 and Italy

It's quite clear G-20's prime concern is Italy. The country is increasingly unable to raise debt at affordable cost, and its prime minister was struggling to push through austerity measures in the face of mounting labour unrest amid an unfriendly parliament. It was also clear the eurozone isn't equipped to deal with the collapse of Italy. At G-20, although they had indicated a willingness to co-operate, non-European leaders had made it clear they want the eurozone to first rely on its own resources to resolve the crisis. Nevertheless, Europeans did consider seeking outside help, in particular to boost their bailout fund, including asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for co-operative support. But no one bit. The very hint of boosting IMF's role underscored deepening worries about the adequacy of Europe's own response. In the end, G-20 leaders agreed only to explore options, including voluntary contributions and using its special drawing rights (SDR) in some fashion.

G-20 has little to show

As in the previous year, an all too familiar G-20 meeting ended with a long list of promises made, many of which reflected a rehash of old ones; with most promises made and then broken in the past; and still others, not known to be kept.

However, one key step did emerge: Italy, the focus of most worries in the European, and indeed the world, markets agreed to permit the IMF to monitor its progress with fiscal reforms. This is as drastic a step as can be expected, given the biggest fear among Europeans is that markets will cease financing Italy, causing a meltdown the eurozone would be quite powerless to stop.

European leaders had hoped G-20 would conclude with an endorsement of their plan announced a week before, that would boost confidence in the markets. It included new efforts to recapitalise European banks, an upgraded bailout scheme for Greece, and an increase in funding available to the eurozone's bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

There was also the hope to enhance EFSF's capacity through parallel “investments” from non-European G-20 members. G-20 had noted the European Central Bank's (ECB) refusal to act as lender of last resort and to provide financing to help leverage the EFSF's 440 billion euro into something much larger, which had led the Europeans to pursue the non-Europeans with large surpluses, such as China.

As the eurozone crisis deepened, much of the wider G-20 agenda to encourage “strong, stable & balanced” global growth fell by the wayside at this time. As I understand it, it would appear the stronger economies, including China, Germany, Canada & Brazil, did agree to limit efforts at fiscal tightening and possibly do more to boost demand at home. This marked a reversal from last year's summit which centred on fiscal deficit reduction.

The G-20 pact 

The more important conclusions reached at the Summit included the following:

● Commitment to take decisions to reinvigorate economic growth, create jobs, ensure financial stability and promote social inclusion; and to coordinate their actions and policies.
● An action plan for growth and jobs to address short-term vulnerabilities and strengthen foundations for growth. Advanced economies committed to adopt policies to build confidence and support growth, and implement clear & credible measures at fiscal consolidation.
● Commitment by (i) countries whose public finances remain strong to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand; (ii) countries with large current surpluses commit to reforms to raise domestic demand; and (iii) all commit to further structural reforms to raise output in their countries.
● Commitment to strengthen the social dimension of globalisation.
● Set-up a taskforce to work with priority on youth unemployment.
● Agreement to (i) ensure the SDR basket composition continues to reflect the global role of currencies; (ii) review the composition of the SDR basket in 2015, or earlier; and (iii) make progress towards a more integrated, even-handed and effective IMF surveillance.
● Commitment to move rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems, avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments, and refrain from competitive devaluation.

Despite the cheering about Europe's debt deal and G-20's role in pressuring Europe to act swiftly, worries continue to mount that the world can't succeed without stronger growth. Europe and the United States are virtually at a standstill. At the present pace of muted expansion, unemployment will stay high and incomes stall. Debt saddled nations will have an even tougher time generating enough revenue to pay bills & service debt. This would spark more default fears or even higher borrowing rates in Italy, Greece and others under pressure.

Latest projections point to the eurozone flirting with recession in 2012. Even in Asia, a critical engine of recovery, prospects are dimming. Yet, nations remain divided on enacting new measures to boost growth or continue focus on deficit reduction. Weak nations like Italy and Greece are under intense pressure to adopt very severe austerity schemes in the face of enormous suffering by its people who fall victim to weakened social safety nets and reduced cashflows.

Towards this end, the G-20 commitments fall far short. Markets worldwide have since responded; their verdict: continuing sell-off of bonds and shares, and continuing high cost of borrowing by Italy and Spain.

APEC Honolulu Declaration

Following the goings-on at G-20, the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) economic leaders met in Honolulu on Nov 12-13 to bolster their economies and lower trade barriers as they seek to prop up global growth and shield themselves against fallout from Europe's debt crisis.

They adopted the Honolulu Declaration in which leaders agreed to take concrete steps towards building a “seamless regional economy” to generate growth and create jobs in “three priority areas”: (i) strengthening regional economic integration & expanding trade, (ii) promoting green growth, and (iii) advancing regulatory convergence and co-operation. Apec leaders gathered at a time when “growth and job creation have weakened and significant downside risks remain, including those arising from the financial challenges in Europe and a succession of natural disasters in the region.”

Against this uncertain backdrop, the forum had something more concrete to focus on than the usual bromides about extending free trade. This reflected in part frustration with the long-running (entering its 11th year with no end in sight) world trade talks, and in part, a desire to snap out of the poor global economic outlook. There is also a broader influence from concern about how best to grow and create jobs.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free trade pact covering nine Apec members (the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile & Peru) account for 35% of the world economy, is unique, making it the blueprint for future global trade agreements since it had taken on new issues including green technologies & the digital economy. An agreement was reached on the broad outline of a deal with a final agreement in sight for 2012.

Since then, three more Apec members (Japan, Canada and Mexico) have expressed interest to join. Together, this would create a market of 800 million, the largest trade deal for the United States. The aim is to eventually cover all 21 members of Apec which accounts for more than one-half of the world's economic output. Apec says: “We recognise that further trade liberalisation is essential to achieving a sustainable global recovery in the aftermath of the global recession of 2008-09.” An expanded TPP would provide the much needed boost.

But no trade agreement in the Pacific is complete without China. Looks like a power play between the United States and China is in the works. As such, optimism about its potential benefits needs to be tempered.

At the conclusion of Apec meeting, leaders agreed to: (i) address two key next generation trade and investment issues, viz. commitment to help the small and medium-sized enterprises grow and plug into global production chains; and to promote effective market-driven innovative policies; (ii) develop by 2012 a list of environmental goods (including solar panels, wind turbines and energy efficient light bulbs) that contribute to green growth on which members resolved to reduce tariffs to 5% or less by end 2015, and to also eliminate non-tariff barriers; and (iii) take steps by 2013 to implement good regulatory practices. In the end, the question remains how far leaders will be able to turn promises into action.

The biggest problem on the Asia-Pacific horizon remains Europe, where fiscal turmoil centred on Italy and Greece will continue to surprise and send shock waves worldwide.

As feared, both summits ended with a whimper, eclipsed by the Italian and Greek sovereign debt drama.

● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

Asean for Pacific peace

BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA

WHEN the US hosted this year’s Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit, Honolulu was the natural venue. Hawaii is the only US state in the Pacific, as distinct from merely being on the periphery.

But as regions go, the “Asia-Pacific” itself is a cumbersome construct alien to existing realities. Not only is the Pacific Ocean the largest expanse of water on the planet, making the Asia-Pacific a “region” is a geopolitical attempt to fuse several distinct regions lapped by Pacific waters into a single whole: East Asia, Oceania, North America and Latin America.

That has made an ambitious, 21-member Apec an unwieldy mass of anxieties in search of a higher purpose beyond generalities shared also by much of the rest of the world. With few common interests and fewer shared priorities and modalities, Apec proceedings have progressively suffered from inertia.

In contrast, more natural regions as clusters of nations or economies in and around the Pacific have evolved with greater vibrancy. The late Robert Scalapino, UC Berkeley’s specialist in East Asian affairs, called these “natural economic territories (Nets)”.

On one level, culture, history and trade (economics) have bonded these entities together as identifiable regions: thus the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), Mercosur, the EU and Asean Plus Three (APT, with China, Japan and South Korea). They developed from geographical proximity and social affinity through economic logic and official policy.

Although today’s US-China economic relationship continues to grow, it is at least as competitive as it is complementary. Their non-economic relationship is even more troubled.

On a localised level, Nets are evident in “growth triangles” and various growth polygons in several cross-border regions. Without their non-political elements, however, “regions” become undernourished because they cannot live on strategic concerns alone.

Nets do not deny a unitary global economy with globalised supply chains and markets – or the contagion effect these produce when core economies decline. But Nets do help to explain the distinct economic impulses and motive forces for each region, such as why East Asia remains the world’s most economically dynamic region even when North American and European economies falter.

Politically, East Asia also has no ideological encumbrances when state policy determines economic priorities. Culturally, pragmatism is key, so that eclecticism is often rated above orthodoxy.

Differences between regions are also manifested in the way foreign relations are shaped. For Asean, it is better for countries to agree to disagree without being disagreeable, than for them to confront each other with self-righteous ire and distinct dogmas.

East Asia is also not as hypersensitive to the vagaries of a fickle electorate with sensibilities set to four-year election cycles. National policy therefore has more time to develop, mature and yield dividends.

In the build-up to Apec 2011, Ralph Cossa of Honolulu-based think tank Pacific Forum CSIS said: “China is becoming an 800-pound gorilla. The US is still the 1,600-pound gorilla, so which one would you rather have? ... we’re housebroken; we’re a lot more fun to invite into your living room ...”

China’s impressive rise still marks it as aspiring to only a fraction of what the US has already achieved, economically and more so militarily – if China is aiming for tactical parity at all, which is doubtful.

But Cossa is right only in part. The reality of a post-Cold War world, and one which all Asean countries hope will prevail, is not having to choose between superpowers.

The regional situation is not either-or, “with us or against us”. It is “both and”, so the question of “rather having” one or the other does not arise.

Besides, whether any superpower is, ever has, or can be “housebroken” remains very much in doubt. Nations that have borne the brunt of US military intervention are still hoping to recover.

But Cossa is right in that the US needs to be invited into this region’s “living room” – it is not an Asian country. China, however, has always been an Asian power, and an East Asian giant at that.

How the US today, still bristling with military technology and looking to confront global challenges, responds to a rising China forms the basis of the region’s concerns. Developments in recent days have not been reassuring.

On his way to the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Bali after Apec, President Barack Obama stopped over in Australia and announced plans for stationing US troops there.

Mean­while, the Pentagon has been working quietly on its AirSea Battle concept to counter China (see   next).

On Wednesday the US said it would provide the Philippines with an additional warship to boost Manila’s claims to islands in the South China Sea disputed by China. The next day a US Congressional committee voted to provide Taiwan with new F-16 jet fighters in addition to technical upgrades to its existing fleet, upping the ante in Taipei against Beijing.

On Friday Japan pledged US$25bil (RM79bil) in infrastructure projects for Asean countries, in efforts described as raising its regional profile in competing with China. Following China’s reservations about the US-Australia military arrangements, Canberra warned Beijing not to interfere.

East Asia has tried and tested ways of satisfactorily engaging various powers, regardless of size and strength.

What the region does not need, and can ill afford, is superpower presumptuousness that upsets diplomacy and destabilises geopolitics.

A pragmatic Asean has learnt that bluster, bravado and brinkmanship are not the way to proceed. Its steadier if slower methods are respected internationally, having made it the most successful regional organisation in Asia.

Where US military dominance of the Pacific has ensured safe passage of international shipments, the US is the main benefactor and a resource-importing, export-oriented China the main beneficiary.

If there is any change to the status quo, China would want to be the least involved.

Pentagon planning Cold War against China - AirSea Battle concept

Pentagon battle concept has Cold War posture on China ...

Washington Times: 12 November 2011

The Pentagon lifted the veil of secrecy Wednesday on a new battle concept aimed at countering Chinese military efforts to deny access to areas near its territory and in cyberspace.
 
The Air Sea Battle concept is the start of what defense officials say is the early stage of a new Cold War-style military posture toward China.
 
The plan calls for preparing the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to defeat China's "anti-access, area denial weapons," including anti-satellite weapons, cyberweapons, submarines, stealth aircraft and long-range missiles that can hit aircraft carriers at sea.
 
Military officials from the three services told reporters during a background briefing that the concept is not directed at a single country. But they did not answer when asked what country other than China has developed advanced anti-access arms.

 

** FILE ** A security officer walks on the roof of the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

A senior Obama administration official was more blunt, saying the new concept is a significant milestone signaling a new Cold War-style approach to China.

"Air Sea Battle is to China what the maritime strategy was to the Soviet Union," the official said.
 
During the Cold War, US naval forces around the world used a strategy of global presence and shows of force to deter Moscow's advances.
 
"It is a very forward-deployed, assertive strategy that says we will not sit back and be punished," the senior official said. "We will initiate."
 
The concept, according to defense officials, grew out of concerns that China's new precision-strike weapons threaten freedom of navigation in strategic waterways and other global commons.
 
Defense officials familiar with the concept said among the ideas under consideration are:
 
• Building a new long-range bomber.
• Conducting joint submarine and stealth aircraft operations.
• New jointly operated, long-range unmanned strike aircraft with up to 1,000-mile ranges.
• Using Air Force forces to protect naval bases and deployed naval forces.
• Conducting joint Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force strikes inside China.
• Using Air Force aircraft to deploy sea mines.
• Joint Air Force and Navy attacks against Chinese anti-satellite missiles inside China.
• Increasing the mobility of satellites to make attacks more difficult.
• Launching joint Navy and Air Force cyber-attacks on Chinese anti-access forces.
 
Pentagon press secretary George Little said the new office "is a hard-won and significant operational milestone in meeting emerging threats to our global access."
 
"This office will help guide meaningful integration of our air and naval combat capabilities, strengthening our military deterrent power, and maintaining US advantage against the proliferation of advanced military technologies and capabilities," Mr. Little said.
 
He noted that it is a Pentagon priority to rebalance joint forces to better deter and defeat aggression in "anti-access environments."
 
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said during a visit to Asia that US forces would be reoriented toward Asia as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The new focus will include "enhanced military capabilities," he said without elaborating.
 
The military officials at the Pentagon on Wednesday did not discuss specifics of the new concept. One exception was an officer who said an example would be the use of Air Force A-10 ground attack jets to defend ships at sea from small-boat "swarm" attacks.
 
China in recent years has grown more assertive in waters near its shores, harassing Navy surveillance ships in the South China Sea and Yellow Sea.
 
China also has claimed large portions of the South China Sea as its territory. US officials said the Chinese have asserted that it is "our driveway."
 
The Pentagon also is concerned about China's new DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile that can hit aircraft carriers at sea. Carriers are the key power-projection capability in Asia and would be used in defending Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
 
"The Air Sea Battle concept will guide the services as they work together to maintain a continued US advantage against the global proliferation of advanced military technology and [anti-access/area denial] capabilities," the Pentagon said in announcing the creation of a program office for the concept.
 
Although the office was set up in August, the background briefing Wednesday was the first time the Pentagon officially rolled out the concept.
 
The Army is expected to join the concept office in the future.
 
One defense official said the Army is involved in cyberwarfare initiatives that would be useful for countering anti-access weapons.
 
"Simply put, we're talking about freedom of access in the global commons. Increasing ranges of precision fire threaten those global commons in new expanding ways," said a military official speaking on condition of anonymity. "That, in a nutshell, is what's different."
 
Defense officials said some administration officials opposed the new concept over concerns it would upset China. That resulted in a compromise that required military and defense officials to play down the fact that China is the central focus of the new battle plan.
 
A second military official said the new concept also is aimed at shifting the current US military emphasis on counterinsurgency to the anti-access threats.
 
The office was disclosed as President Obama sets off this week on trip to Asia designed to shore up alliances. He is set to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao in Hawaii on Saturday.
 
The concept grew out of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that, in its early stages, had excluded any mention of China's growing military might.
 
China was added to the review after intervention by Andrew Marshall, director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, at the time head of the Joint Forces Command.
 
China military specialist Richard Fisher said the new Air Sea Battle office is necessary but may be "late in the game."
 
"A Pentagon office focused on China's military challenges in Asia or beyond will be insufficient," said Mr. Fisher, of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. "This challenge will require Cold War levels of strategic, political and economic policy integration well beyond the Pentagon's writ."
 
Said former State Department China specialist John Tkacik: "This new Air Sea Battle concept is evidence that Washington is finally facing up to the real threat that China has become an adversarial military, naval and nuclear power in Asia, and that the only way to balance China is to lend the weight of US air and naval forces to our Asia-Pacific allies' ground forces."
 
Source: Washington Times

War Crimes Tribunal Tries Bush, Blair for War Crimes against humanity!

Tweet

Telegraph.co.uk

Activists in Malaysia plan 'war crime trial' of George W. Bush and Tony Blair

Malaysian-led activists will hold a symbolic trial this month for former President George W. Bush and British ex-leader Tony Blair on charges of committing crimes against peace in the Iraq war, the event's organisers said on Tuesday. 
  President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003

 Video: rightwaystan War crimes exhibition held in Kuala Lumpur : http://t.co/pjPgRlpY



Streaming Video: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal -
The following URL will stream video of each session of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal within 1-2 hours after the specific session has ended. To access this streaming video please go to:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/war-is-a-crime-exhibition
 
Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Schedule of Sessions
Saturday Nov. 19, 2011   9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;
Sunday Nov. 20, 2011     9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;
Monday Nov. 21, 2011    9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;
Tuesday Nov. 22, 2011   9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;

CONVERT TO YOUR TIME ZONE:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Sessions of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal will also be online on You Tube.



The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is an initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The tribunal will convene a four-day public hearing starting Saturday to determine whether Bush and Blair committed crimes against peace and violated international law in the Iraq invasion, said Malaysian lawyer Yaacob Hussain Marican.

"For these people who have been immune from prosecution, we want to put them on trial in this forum to prove that they committed war crimes," Yaacob told The Associated Press.

Activists sent information about the charges to Bush and Blair recently but received no response, Yaacob said.

Francis Boyle, an American international law professor based in Illinois, will be among the prosecutors at the hearing, which follows two years of investigations by a Malaysian peace foundation founded by Mahathir that looked into complaints by people affected by the Iraqi war.

The effort is modelled after a 1967 Vietnam War crimes panel convened in Sweden and Denmark by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre, Yaacob said. The Vietnam tribunal said the U.S. committed acts of aggression against Vietnam and bombarded civilian targets, but it was mostly ignored in United States.

The Kuala Lumpur tribunal will have a seven-member panel of judges including two retired judges from Malaysia's highest court, peace activist Alfred Lambremont Webre of the United States and Mumbai-based lawyer Niloufer Bhagwat of India.

If the tribunal finds Bush and Blair guilty, it will enter their names into a symbolic "Register of War Criminals."

The tribunal is also scheduled to hold a separate hearing next year on charges of torture linked to the Iraq war against former U.S. officials including ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Yaacob said.

Bush and Blair to be Tried for War Crimes

From: Mathaba

First time that war crimes charges will be heard against the two former heads of state.

On November 19-22, 2011, the trial of George W. Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L. Blair (former British Prime Minister) will be held in Kuala Lumpur. This is the first time that war crimes charges will be heard against the two former heads of state in compliance with proper legal process.

Charges are being brought against the accused by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) following the due process of the law. The Commission, having received complaints from war victims in Iraq in 2009, proceeded to conduct a painstaking and an in-depth investigation for close to two years and in 2011, constituted formal charges on war crimes against Bush, Blair and their associates.

The Iraq invasion in 2003 and its occupation had resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. Countless others had endured torture and untold hardship. The cries of these victims have thus far gone unheeded by the international community. The fundamental human right to be heard has been denied to them.

As a result, the KLWCC had been established in 2008 to fill this void and act as a peoples’ initiative to provide an avenue for such victims to file their complaints and let them have their day in a court of law.

The first charge against George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair is for Crimes Against Peace wherein:

The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The second charge is for Crime of Torture and War Crimes against eight citizens of the United States and they are namely George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo, wherein:

The Accused persons had committed the Crime of Torture and War Crimes, in that: The Accused persons had wilfully participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws, namely the Convention against Torture 1984, Geneva Convention III 1949, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter in relation to the war launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan (in 2001) and in Iraq (in March 2003); Additionally, and/or on the basis and in furtherance thereof, the Accused persons authorised, or connived in, the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment against victims in violation of international law, treaties and conventions including the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Conventions, including Geneva Convention III 1949.

The trial will be held before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, which is constituted of eminent persons with legal qualifications.



The judges of the Tribunal, which is headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, also include other notable names such as Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre, a Yale graduate, who authored several books on politics, Dato’ Zakaria Yatim, retired Malaysian Federal Court judge, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, practising lawyer and author of numerous publications on International Law, Prof Salleh Buang, former Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General Chambers and prominent author, Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, an expert in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law, and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, prominent academic and professor of law.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement.

In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide. The tribunal is a tribunal of conscience and a peoples’ initiative.

The prosecution for the trial will be lead by Prof Gurdial S Nijar, prominent law professor and author of several law publications and Prof Francis Boyle, leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, and assisted by a team of lawyers.

The trial will be held in an open court on November 19-22, 2011 at the headquarters of the Al-Bukhary Foundation at Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Bush and Blair to be ‘charged’

KUALA LUMPUR: Former US president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair will be “charged” at a mock tribunal here for their war crimes today.

Perdana Global Peace Foundation president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who initiated the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, said the two former leaders would be charged for crimes against peace for planning, preparing and invading the sovereign state of Iraq on March 19, 2003, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The tribunal would hold the proceedings for four days at No. 88, Jalan Perdana here.

Crime against humanity: (Right) Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali, Tan Sri Norian Mai and Dr Mahathir at the “War is Crime” exhibition in Kuala Lumpur Friday.

 
It would be open to the public.

Dr Mahathir said although the two could not be jailed if they were found guilty, society could reject them by not inviting them to talks or events.

“Don't entertain these people or invite them to give talks,” he said after launching the “War is Crime” exhibition held in conjunction with the tribunal's efforts to criminalise war.

Dr Mahathir alleged that Blair had lied to the British parliament and the British people.

“What do you want to learn from him? To learn how to lie?” he added.

Dr Mahathir said that voters of countries at risk of going to war should also hold politicians accountable by making them reject war as a way to resolve problems.

Tribunal counsel Avtaran Singh said the “charge” have been served on the two leaders.

“If they are found guilty of the charges, the tribunal would continue with the second charge of torture and war crimes,” he added.

Avtaran said the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court had failed to take action against Bush and Blair.

“Internationally, the system has failed,” he added

.- The Star

KL tribunal to try Bush, Blair for Iraq war crimes

By R. SITTAMPARAM KUALA LUMPUR news@nst.com.my

Trial to go on despite absence of response from both leaders

Professor Gurdial S. Nijar will head the prosecution during the trial

  The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal  on Saturday will  try former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony  Blair on a charge of committing crimes against peace during the Iraq War.

  Bush and seven  top US officials who served under him  will also face a separate charge of crimes of torture and war crimes at the tribunal.

  The three-day hearing, conducted by  seven senior judges headed by retired  Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman,  will go on although the two accused leaders and other defendants have yet to respond to the tribunal's notice.

  Datuk Dr Yaacob Hussain Marican, the secretary-general of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War,  which is holding the tribunal, said the tribunal was being convened for the third time since 2007.

  Yaacob said the tribunal of conscience was modelled on  the one convened by philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1966 to try the perpetrators of the Vietnam War.

  Yaacob said although the tribunal  lacked enforcement powers, it would publish the verdict to get the world community to treat the accused as guilty persons.

  "The charges are being brought against the accused by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission,  which comes under our foundation, following in-depth investigations into complaints received from war victims in 2009.

  "The commission  acts as a peoples' initiative to provide an avenue for  victims to file their complaints and let them have their day in a court of law."

  Professor  Gurdial S. Nijar, a  law professor and author of  law publications, and Professor Francis Boyle,  an American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, will head the prosecution during the trial.

  The trial, to be held in an open court at the headquarters of the Al- Bukhary Foundation in  Jalan Perdana here, is open to the public.

  In conjunction with the tribunal, Perdana Global Peace Foundation will organise an exhibition, " War is a Crime",  with a conference on  Friday.

  Its chairman, Tan Sri Norian Mai, said the conference's theme, "The Arab Uprising", to be opened by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, would see  speakers such as former US presidential candidate and congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and former United Nations assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday.

U.S., China set to face off at summit over sea dispute

Tweet

By Ben Blanchard

NUSA DUA, Indonesia | Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:37pm EST

(Reuters) - The United States and China are set to face off on Saturday at a regional summit over the thorny issue of how to resolve competing claims to sovereignty of the South China Sea, the latest point of friction between the two powerful nations.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao insisted on Friday that "outside forces" had no excuse to get involved in the complex maritime dispute, a veiled warning to the United States and other countries to keep out of the sensitive issue.

Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei all have claims to parts of the South China Sea, a major route for some $5 trillion in trade each year and potentially rich in resources. China claims large parts of the maritime region.

The Southeast Asian countries along with the United States and Japan are pressuring Beijing to try to seek some way forward on the knotty issue of sovereignty, which flared up again this year with often tense maritime stand-offs that an Australian think tank said could lead to conflict.

China wants to hold bilateral talks with other countries that claims parts of the South China Sea as their territory, but the Southeast Asian claimants, the United States and Japan are pushing for a multilateral approach.



"It ought to be resolved through friendly consultations and discussions by countries directly involved. Outside forces should not, under any pretext, get involved," Wen told a meeting with Southeast Asian leaders on Friday, several of whose countries claim sovereignty to parts of the South China Sea.

Wen's comments were carried on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website (www.mfa.gov.cn).

Obama has been more low key as far as public comments are concerned. He told the leaders of India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia in bilateral meetings that the East Asia Summit, which draws together Southeast Asian nations and eight dialogue partners, was the right arena to discuss maritime disputes.

U.S. Deputy National Security adviser for strategic communications, Ben Rhodes, said earlier this week that "in the discussion about maritime security, the South China Sea will clearly be a concern."

Obama and Wen plan to meet on the sidelines of the summit before the leaders start their formal meeting.

INFLUENCE

Their exchanges are the latest barbs between the two countries in recent weeks as Obama has sought to reassert U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific to counter the growing clout of the world's second-largest economy, China.

Obama said in Australia on Thursday, on his last stop before jetting to the Asia meetings in neighboring Indonesia, that the U.S. military would expand its Asia-Pacific role, declaring America was "here to stay" as a Pacific power.

Days earlier, as host of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation forum in Hawaii, Obama had voiced growing frustration at China's trade practices and he pushed for a new Asia-Pacific trade deal with some of Beijing's neighbors.

The moves are seen as an attempt to reassert U.S. leadership in the face of China's rising influence around the Pacific Rim and reassure allies such as South Korea and Japan that it would remain a strong counterweight.

Obama also announced on Friday that he would send Secretary of States Hillary Clinton next month to Myanmar, which has drawn closer to China in reaction to Western sanctions, the first such trip to the isolated country in half a century.

That will add to some fears in Beijing of encirclement in the Asia Pacific as the United States increases its footprint in the region.

CLAIMS

China's claims over the South China Sea is by far the largest, forming a U-shape over most of the sea's 648,000 square miles (1.7 million square kms), including the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos.

The United States has irked China by declaring a national interest at stake in the South China Sea by ensuring the freedom of navigation and trade.

Estimates of proven and undiscovered oil reserves in the South China Sea range from 28 billion barrels of oil to as high as 213 billion barrels, U.S. figures showed in 2008. Gas deposits could be as high as 3.8 trillion cubic meters.

Both could supply China with energy for decades.

The Philippines has called for greater unity among Southeast Asian nations with claims in their stand against China. A strong position from the United States in support of open talks could embolden such unity.

(Writing by Neil Fullick) 
Newscribe : get free news in real time

China cautions 'outside forces' on sea issue

Tweet

Wen Jiabao sounds warning against interference in dispute with neighbours over potentially oil-rich South China Sea.  Wen wants any dispute over the South China Sea to be resolved by the countries that are affected [EPA] Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, has said "outside forces" had no excuse to get involved in a complex dispute over the South China Sea. Wen, who spoke on Friday at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, gave a veiled warning to the US and others not to interfere in the sensitive issue. But he also struck a softer line during the ASEAN summit by offering loans and saying China only wanted to be friends. China already claim a large swathe of the South China Sea, which straddles key shipping lanes and is potentially rich in energy resources. Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei are the other claimants to parts of the sea, and along with the US and Japan, are pressuring China to try and seek some way forward on the knotty issue of sovereignty, which has flared up again this year with often tense maritime confrontations. The Chinese news agency reported Wen as saying "the dispute which exists among relevant countries in this region over the South China Sea is an issue which has built up for several years". "It ought to be resolved through friendly consultations and discussions by countries directly involved. Outside forces should not, under any pretext, get involved," he said. Concerns expressed Japan has also expressed concern over the dispute, and India has become involved via an oil-exploration deal with Vietnam in the South China Sea. Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesian foreign minister, said that China had sent positive signals about further discussing  the code of conduct for the waters. "I think this is an important development," Natalegawa said. China has offered loans of id=mce_marker0bn on top of a pledge of  id=mce_marker5bn in loans made two years ago [AFP] In July, China and Southeast Asian countries agreed on a preliminary set of guidelines in the South China Sea, a rare sign of co-operation in a row that has plagued relations in the region for years. The White House has said President Barack Obama, who is also in Bali, will bring up the issue at the summit. China has said it does not want it discussed, preferring to deal with the problem bilaterally amongst the states directly involved. Beijing accuses the US of trying to consolidate its own position in Southeast Asia. Obama has agreed to to deploy up to 2,500 troops and boost air force co-operation with Australia. China sees US action as a deliberate ploy to counterbalance the rise of China as an economic and military in the region. Despite the disagreements over the South China Sea, China has been keen to deepen trade and economic ties with Southeast Asia, and has a free trade agreement with the bloc. "The China-ASEAN relationship is solidly based and has great potential and a promising future," Wen said in his speech. To this end, Wen said China would offer $10bn in loans, on top of a pledge $15bn of loans made  two years ago. China will also set up a $473 million fund to expand practical maritime co-operation by promoting cooperation in environmental protection, navigational safety and combating transnational crimes. Source: Agencies   Newscribe : get free news in real time