Freedom, GEABSOLUTE POWERS CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY, General Election (GE15), Malaysia, Politics, polling Nov 19: Destroy Umno for the betterment of Malaysia, race, religion, Solidality, support Aliran for Justice
Distressed family members of those on board the flight have also been gathering at Beijing airport.
Chang
Ken Fei, a Malaysian waiting at the airport for friends to arrive,
said: "I got here at 7:00am. At first I thought the plane was just
delayed as normal, so I came a bit later, I've just been waiting and
waiting."
"I asked them what was going on but they just tell us, 'we don't know'."
If
the plane is found to have crashed, the loss would mark the second
fatal accident involving a Boeing 777 in less than a year, after an
unblemished safety record since the jet entered service in 1995.
Last year, an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crash landed in San Francisco, killing three passengers.
Boeing
said it was aware of reports that the Malaysia Airlines plane was
missing and was monitoring the situation but had no further comment.
Among
previous accidents involving Malaysia Airlines planes, one of the
smaller Twin Otter aircraft crashed upon landing in Malaysia's Sabah
state on Borneo island last October, killing a co-pilot and a passenger.
And a jet crashed in 1977 in southern Malaysia, killing all 93 passengers and seven crew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malaysia
Airlines has still not been able to confirm what happened to the
flight. The airline has confirmed that there were 4 Americans — 3 adults
and one infant — aboard the flight, which also carried Canadians and
Australians, and a majority of Chinese and Malay passengers.
Malaysia Airlines lost contact with a commercial aircraft bound from
Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, China, the airline reported Saturday morning.
Flight MH370, a Boeing 777-200ER that was carrying 227 passengers and
12 crew members, was scheduled to land at 6:30 a.m., but lost contact
with air traffic control at 2:40 a.m. on March 8. Its whereabouts are
unknown.
At 7:24 a.m. local time, the airline posted a message to its Facebook page
stating it was working with local search and rescue authorities to find
the aircraft, and that it would continue to provide updates. It
encouraged the public to contact a number provided for information.
A search for the flight on FlightAware.com showed its status as "result unknown" and included a map that depicted its partially completed route.
Malaysia Airlines VP of operations Fuad Sharuji told
CNN's Anderson Cooper that it had tried but "failed to establish any
contact" with the plane before he detailed concerns about how much fuel
it was carrying.
There were "about seven hours of fuel on board this aircraft and we
suspect that by 8:30 this aircraft would have run out of fuel," Faruji
said. He added, "At the moment we have no idea where this aircraft is
right now."
Kuala Lumpur is the hub for Malaysia Airlines, which services over 60
destinations globally with a heavy presence in Asia, according to its
website. The airline told the BBC that it would hold a press conference on the situation later in the day.
According to Reuters, Boeing's 777 had a solid safety record after its 1995 introduction up until last summer's Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco, Calif.
We will continue to update this post with more information as it arises.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (R, front) meets with representatives of youth from both China and Vietnam at Vietnam National University in Hanoi, Vietnam, Oct. 15, 2013. (Xinhua/Liu Jiansheng)
The establishment of a bilateral
work group to discuss joint maritime development was a "breakthrough"
for China and Vietnam on their way to peacefully handle maritime
disputes, analysts say.
During the talks with his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung,
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang urged the two sides to pursue substantive
progress in their joint development in waters out of the mouth of the
Beibu Bay, a semi-enclosed sea whose delimitation remains under
negotiation between China and Vietnam, and accumulate experience for
broader maritime cooperation.
Analysts said the establishment of the group sends a positive signal
of the bilateral readiness for solving difficult problems through
cooperation, and the two countries are taking a step-by-step approach in
solving the disputes.
"Joint development in waters out of the mouth of the Beibu Bay is
acceptable to both sides. The approach that the two countries are taking
is to start with the easiest and then to the difficult," said Zhang
Yunling, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The relationship between China and Vietnam has been overshadowed by
maritime frictions in the South China Sea, but the two countries have
made efforts to maintain frequent high-level exchanges this year. Li's
visit followed trips of the Vietnamese president, prime minister and
deputy prime minister to China earlier this year.
The South China Sea issue involves several parties and the disputes
between China and Vietnam are, in deed, bigger and more complicated,
said Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea
Studies (NISCSS).
"The agreement reached by China and Vietnam, undoubtedly, send a
clear message to other claimants that putting aside bickering on
sovereignty and sitting at the table for joint development is a
pragmatic choice. The attempts to internationalize the South China Sea
issue will result in the deterioration of bilateral ties and worsen the
situation," Wu said.
The decision to establish the group was announced just two days after
China and Brunei vowed in a statement to encourage closer joint
exploration and exploitation of maritime oil and gas resources in the
South China Sea.
In a pioneering move, China National Offshore Oil Corporation and
Brunei National Petroleum Company Sendirian Berhad have inked a deal on
establishing a joint venture on oil field services.
Considering that disputes between Beijing and Hanoi over the South
China Sea have, from time to time, upset bilateral ties in recent years,
the multiple results Li's visit to Vietnam achieved are clear evidence
that the two neighbors are showing a greater political will to rise
above their disputes and forge a mutually acceptable path of
cooperation, said Qu Xing, president of the China Institute of
International Studies.
Li returned to Beijing on Tuesday after attending the East Asia
leaders meetings and paying official visits to Brunei, Thailand and
Vietnam.
Vo Nguyen Giap, the celebrated general who masterminded the defeat of the French military at Dien Bien Phu and led North Vietnam's forces against the US, has died aged 102 at a military hospital in Hanoi.
Giap,
whose victory at Dien Bien Phu triggered France's departure from
Indo-China, was a self-taught leader regarded as one of the great
military geniuses of the post-second world war era.
He remained as
the commander of the North's forces supporting the Viet Cong throughout
the subsequent Vietnam war, being credited with the 1968 Tet offensive.
Giap, known as the Red Napoleon, was a national hero whose reputation was second only to that of Ho Chi Minh.
While
some, such as the American journalist Stanley Karnow, regarded him as a
strategist in the mould of Wellington, others, including the US general
William Westmorland, believed his success was down to his ruthlessness.
Indeed,
Westmorland complained to Karnow: "Any American commander who took the
same vast losses as General Giap would have been sacked overnight."
Giap
was born in the village of An Xa on 25 August 1911 and attended the
University of Hanoi, gaining degrees in politics and law, before working
as a journalist.
He was jailed briefly in 1930 for leading anti-French protests and later earned a law degree from Hanoi University.
He fled French police in 1940 and met Ho Chi Minh in southwestern
China before returning to rural northern Vietnam to recruit guerrillas
for the Viet Minh, a forerunner to the southern insurgency later known
as the Viet Cong.
During his time abroad, his wife was arrested by the French and died in prison. He later remarried and had five children.
In 1944, Ho Chi Minh called on Giap to organize and lead guerrilla
forces against Japanese invaders during World War II. After Japan
surrendered to Allied forces the following year, the Viet Minh continued
their fight for independence from France.
Giap was known for his fiery temper and as a merciless strategist,
but also for being a bit of a dandy: Old photos show him reviewing his
troops in a white suit and snappy tie, in sharp contrast to Ho Chi Minh,
clad in shorts and sandals.
Giap never received any formal military training, joking that he attended the military academy "of the bush."
At Dien Bien Phu, his Viet Minh army surprised elite French forces by
surrounding them. Digging miles (kilometers) of trenches, the
Vietnamese dragged heavy artillery over steep mountains and slowly
closed in during the bloody, 56-day battle that ended with French
surrender on May 7, 1954.
"If a nation is determined to stand up, it is very strong," Giap told
foreign journalists in 2004 prior to the battle's 50th anniversary. "We
are very proud that Vietnam was the first colony that could stand up
and gain independence on its own."
It was the final act that led to French withdrawal and the Geneva
Accords that partitioned Vietnam into north and south in 1956. It paved
the way for war against Saigon and its U.S. sponsors less than a decade
later.
The general drew on his Dien Bien Phu experience to create the Ho Chi
Minh Trail, a clandestine jungle network that snaked through
neighboring — and ostensibly neutral — Laos and Cambodia, to supply his
troops fighting on southern battlefields.
Against American forces with their sophisticated weapons and B-52
bombers, Giap's forces again prevailed. But more than a million of his
troops perished in what is known in Vietnam as the "American War."
"We had to use the small against the big; backward weapons to defeat
modern weapons," Giap said. "At the end, it was the human factor that
determined the victory."
It was his command of Viet Minh forces during
the eight-week battle of Dien Bien Phu, which raged from March to May in
1954, that made his reputation.
Vietnamese forces, who wore
sandals made of car tyres and lugged their artillery piece by piece over
mountains, managed to encircle and crush the French troops in a bloody
engagement immortalised in Bernard Fall's Hell in a Very Small Place.
Although
he was at first a renowned exponent of guerilla tactics, Giap commanded
a devastating conventional assault at Dien Bien Phu, in which his
forces used Chinese-supplied artillery to prevent effective resupply by
air of the base deep in the hills of north-western Vietnam.
During
the bitter fighting that would follow, the garrison, comprising a
series of outposts in a deep valley, gradually succumbed.
On the
brink of being overrun by Giap's forces, the French commander, Christian
de Castries, was forbidden to surrender in an infamous order from his
superior, General René Cogny in Hanoi, who told him: "You will fight to
the end. It is out of the question to run up the white flag after your
heroic resistance."
The unlikely victory, which is still studied
at military schools, led not only to Vietnam's independence but hastened
the collapse of colonialism across Indochina and beyond.
Giap
went on to defeat the US-backed South Vietnam government in April 1975,
reuniting a country that had been split into communist and non-communist
states. He regularly accepted heavy combat losses to achieve his goals.
"No
other wars for national liberation were as fierce or caused as many
losses as this war," Giap told the Associated Press in 2005 in one of
his last-known interviews with foreign media on the eve of the 30th
anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the former South Vietnamese capital.
"But
we still fought because for Vietnam, nothing is more precious than
independence and freedom," he said, repeating a famous quote by Ho Chi
Minh.
In later life Giap served as deputy premier and minister of defence.
He is survived by Dang Bich Ha, his wife since 1949, and four children.
MALAYSIA is perceived to be one of the costlier countries in the region when it comes to vehicle prices. But industry observers believe that this is compensated by the fact that the country’s fuel prices are heavily subsidised, and that it also enjoys the lowest interest rates in South-East Asia.
“One should not compare vehicle cost of ownership in the region purely based on the price of the car alone,” says Malaysian Automotive Association president Datuk Aishah Ahmad.
According to data by the Malaysia Automotive Institute (MAI), the average interest rate in Malaysia for a loan tenure of between 60 months and 108 months is between 2.5% and 3.6% - which is the lowest in Asean.
Interest rates in Vietnam is the highest, which has a flat rate of 16% per annum for loans that range between 12 months and 60 months.
“Given the fact that Malaysia’s interest rates are the lowest in the region, as well as the fact that fuel prices are subsidised, the total cost of vehicle ownership is one of the lowest in Asean,” says MAI chief executive officer Madani Sahari. The cost of interest rates used in MAI’s calculations is over 5 years.
The MAI is the think-tank for the Malaysian automotive industry.
Madani notes also that the price of subsidised RON 95 in Malaysia was one of the lowest in the region at RM1.90 per litre. Comparatively, the cost for the fuel in Thailand is RM3.80 per litre, Indonesia (RM3.35 per litre), Singapore (RM5.10 per litre), Vietnam (RM3.60 per litre) and the Philippines (RM3.20 per litre).
“In terms of road tax, we are also quite competitive in Asean. Malaysia is still cheaper compared with countries such as Thailand and Indonesia and comparative to Vietnam and the Philippines,” he says.
“We have low fuel prices and interest rates. All of these factors have contributed to Malaysia’s low cost of vehicle ownership.”
Madani points out that over a five-year period, the average road tax and insurance in Malaysia was among the lowest in the region, costing RM1,990 and RM15,310 respectively.
The five-year cost of road tax and insurance in Singapore was the highest at RM13,779 and RM39,806 respectively, compared with Indonesia (RM9,186 and RM22,965), Thailand (RM2,297 and RM33,682) and the Philippines (RM1,531 and RM14,238).
When comparing vehicle prices, especially those of popular international marques such as Toyota, Honda and BMW, Madani points out that prices in Malaysia were still lower compared with countries such as Singapore and Vietnam.
According to data from the MAI, a 1.5-litre Toyota Vios (as at September 2012) costs RM87,313 in Malaysia but costs RM88,456 and RM303,136 in Vietnam and Singapore respectively. The Vios is cheapest in the Philippines at RM60,271.
A brand new 1.5-litre Honda City meanwhile retails for RM88,443 locally and costs RM106,090 and RM295,800 in Vietnam and Singapore respectively and lowest in the Philippines at RM61,472.
The BMW 3 series, a popular premium model that is represented in most Asean countries, costs RM238,800 in Malaysia. It costs RM248,200 and RM541,200 respectively in Vietnam and Singapore. It costs the least in Indonesia, retailing at RM191,900.
However, when taking into account the vehicles’ selling price, down payment and loan repayment (including interest rates), road tax and insurance, as well as the fuel prices of the different countries, the total vehicle cost of ownership for a 1.5-litre Toyota Vios is RM130,382, which is the second lowest in the region after Philippines, where the total vehicle cost of ownership is RM128,933.
Total vehicle cost of ownership for the Toyota Camry (2.5-litre) in Malaysia is also second lowest in the region at RM243,182. The total vehicle cost of ownership for the Toyota Altis (1.8-litre) in Malaysia is however the cheapest in the region at RM163,973.
After the Philippines, Malaysia also boasts the second lowest total vehicle cost of ownership for the Honda City (1.5-litre), Civic (1.8-litre) and Accord (2.4-litre) models in the region. Malaysia also has the lowest total vehicle cost of ownership for the BMW 3 series.
Asean countries are still developing because there is still much to do, and much to learn about how to do it.
IF Asean is sometimes accused of being a talking shop, it also vividly demonstrates the value and virtues of some talking shops.
Officials’ meetings at various levels are legion, growing in number and scope over half a century until they average a few a day for every day of the year.
Between these are the summits, being more prominent in comprising heads of governments. Besides the content of the proceedings, the frequency of the summits themselves may indicate the state of the South-East Asian region.
When leaders from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand met in Bangkok in 1967 to found Asean, that was somehow not considered a summit. So the “first” summit came only in 1976 in Bali, with the “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-East Asia” and the “Declaration of Asean Concord.”
The second summit came the following year in Kuala Lumpur, coinciding with an Asean-Japan dialogue. Although this was only one year after the first, it was a whole decade after Asean’s founding and would be another full decade before the next.
The third summit (Manila, 1987) decided to hold summits every five years. By the seventh (Bandar Seri Begawan) it would be every year, then after skipping 2006 the Philippines hosted the 12th in Cebu amid local protests.
The 14th summit slated for 2008 in Thailand was postponed to early 2009 over domestic disturbances, then put off for another two months in the broken Pattaya gathering. From then on, summits would be biannual affairs.
Between and beyond the summits, whether or not local scandals and protests add to the news value of Asean gatherings, the original five member nations seem to attract more attention if not also more interest. This is anomalous since Asean membership confers equal status on all members regardless of size, age, clout or political system.
The newer members can actually be quite pivotal in their own way, as Vietnam and then Cambodia had been, and as Myanmar may be now. And several of the older members need not be particularly significant to the Asean 10 as a whole, much less beyond.
With such issues in mind, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy Studies Group last week held another roundtable conference in Kuala Lumpur on how relations between Malaysia and the CLM countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) can contribute to Asean consolidation.
An earlier roundtable comprised delegates from Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in assessing how their countries’ relations with Malaysia could progress in the same vein. Vietnam, as the largest and most developed of Asean’s newer CLMV members, had also introduced reforms earliest to qualify to join the earlier dialogue with some of the original members.
Other CLMV countries have progressed on other fronts on their own. It is now 20 years since Cambodia, for example, reached agreement with Malaysia on visa-free travel.
Laos is another country that Malaysia has assisted, with the establishment of bilateral relations (in 1966) even before Asean was founded. Since then, relations have flourished, particularly after Malaysia worked to welcome Vientiane into Asean.
Myanmar today is still undergoing a transition, and therefore also very much a focus of world media attention. Its people now have a greater sense of nationhood following a raft of reforms, mindful of the national interest from economic priorities to the prerogative of rejecting foreign military bases on its soil.
A Malaysian delegate said that the US, following news reports last Sunday, was now looking for a suitable site for a new “missile shield” system in the region. The US and China were the two proverbial “elephants in the room”, and the geopolitical rivalry between them very much an issue for all delegates.
No individual, organisation or country at the roundtable, whether officially or unofficially, was left undisturbed by major power rivalry contaminating the Asean region. This was the more so when preparations abroad tended to centre around a military build-up, with the US “pivot to Asia” involving stationing 60% of its military assets in the Asia-Pacific.
According to one recent analysis, at current and anticipated rates China’s economy could surpass the US’ as early as 2016, and US overall decline could become evident by 2020. Ironically, as with its former Soviet adversary before it, the decline would be underscored by excessive military expenditure and a warlike mindset.
Given these scenarios, it is important to be reminded of some pertinent underlying issues. These may be framed by some telling questions that must be asked, for which answers are vitally needed.
First, are the CLM countries necessarily more dependent on a regional superpower-as-benefactor like China economically, compared to Asean’s older and more developed members. Not so, especially when considering that the latter, with larger economies, have more at stake in dealing with a rising China.
Second, is China even likely to consider challenging US dominance in the region? Despite occasionally dire pronouncements by some there is no evidence of that, indeed quite the reverse: beyond assertions of its old maritime claims, Beijing’s relations with all countries in the region have been progressing and progressive.
US military dominance in the Asia-Pacific is often credited with keeping the regional peace, particularly in the high seas. Is this assumption merited if piracy and terrorism are not included in the calculus, since there may not be any other military force out to wreak havoc in the region post-1945?
Fourth, how much value is there still in the assumption that the US military posture is and will remain the status quo entity in the region? The status quo is helping China’s economy grow, with secure shipping and harmonious development, while the US economy is continually taxed by its large and growing military presence.
Fifth, and by extension, how much pulling power is there today in US efforts at soliciting allies? The problem with enlisting in an alliance for other countries is that to be identified as an ally of a major power is also to identify as an ally against another major power.
Dividing the region in Cold War fashion does not help anyone, and never did. To enlist with a (relatively) declining superpower creates further problems of its own for such allies.
Sixth, can China’s reported flexing of its muscles in the South China Sea and the East China Sea in any way be a show of strength? Since it only gives Beijing a negative image just as it needs to look good, without any gain in return, it is instead a point of weakness.
Seventh, can US efforts to contain China ever work? There is no shortage of instances that verify containment, a situation confirmed by official denials.
So, eighth, why try to contain China at all when in the process the US only loses goodwill before losing face? Perhaps old habits die hard, but more likely the military-industrial complex dies harder.
Smaller countries in Asean and elsewhere have much to learn from the major powers, notably the US and China. Sadly, the lessons are just as much what not to do as they are about what to do.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA sunday@thestar.com.my
Hanoi's disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea have given rise to frictions, and analysts said the passed law may internationalize the issue and bring a heavy blow to bilateral relations.
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the NPC expressed its position concerning the recent passing of the Vietnamese Law of the Sea in a letter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Vietnamese National Assembly.
The Vietnamese National Assembly passed the Vietnamese Law of the Sea to include China's Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands in the South China Sea within Vietnam's sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The NPC expressed its firm opposition to the move and urged the Vietnamese National Assembly "to correct the erroneous practice immediately."
"The move by the Vietnamese National Assembly is a serious violation of China's territorial sovereignty and is illegal and invalid.
It violates the consensus reached by both leaders, as well as the principles of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea," the NPC Foreign Affairs Committee said in the letter.
"The NPC Foreign Affairs Committee hopes the Vietnamese National Assembly to honestly respect China's territorial sovereignty and correct the wrongful practice so as to safeguard the China-Vietnam comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership as well as the friendly relations between China's NPC and the Vietnamese National Assembly," the letter said.
The NPC also reaffirmed in the letter that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Xisha islands, Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters. - Xinhua/Asia News Network Related articles/post:
The continuing standoff between China and the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island) is a reminder that Asean needs to get its act together sooner rather than later.
THE South China Sea, spread over 3.6 million sq km, has long been a hotbed of overlapping bilateral and multilateral territorial claims.
China claims “indisputable sovereignty” over three-fourths of the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly group of islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. Parts of the Spratly islands are also claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
The Paracels are claimed by China and Vietnam while the Scarborough Shoal involves the Philippines and China.
What makes these claims significant, and complicated, is the real possibility that the South China Sea may contain some of the world’s most significant deposits of oil and gas. Some estimates suggest that the region may contain as much as 20-30 billion tonnes of oil or 12% of global reserves.
Earlier this year, the Philippines invited foreign companies to drill for oil in the Scarborough Shoal area. China immediately condemned the move. The People’s Daily, in an editorial, even went so far as to call for “substantial moves, such as economic sanctions, to counter aggression from the Philippines”.
China has repeatedly stated that it wants to settle these conflicting claims through peaceful negotiations. However, it has not been averse to using force when challenged; it forcibly took the Paracels and seven of the Spratly islands from Vietnam following skirmishes in 1974 and 1988, respectively.
This stands in contrast to the peaceful resolution of island disputes between Malaysia and Singapore, and Malaysia and Indonesia, through the auspices of the International Court of Justice.
Malaysia and Thailand also set a sterling example in 1979 by agreeing to put aside overlapping boundary claims in the Gulf of Thailand and jointly exploiting oil resources there, a win-win situation for both sides. A similar agreement was signed between Malaysia and Vietnam in 1992.
Territorial sovereignty can, of course, be a highly emotive issue. Nations often work themselves into a frenzy and go to great lengths to defend a pile of rock, a shoal or a frozen bit of mountain.
India and Pakistan, for example, have squared off against each other for more than 20 years over a worthless patch of ice in the Himalayas, 5,700m above sea level.
More soldiers have died of harsh weather conditions than actual combat but the madness goes on with no end in sight.
In 1996, Asean ministers, recognising the potential for conflict arising from overlapping claims in the South China Sea, agreed to negotiate a regional framework for managing the issue. It has been a difficult process.
In 2002, Asean and China managed only a joint declaration committing themselves to the peaceful resolution of their territorial disputes. It has not, however, prevented tense situations from developing as we have seen in the Scarborough Shoal.
Understandably, Asean is extremely wary of upsetting China. China has become too big, too powerful, too overwhelming to antagonise.
At the same time, Asean is also deeply divided on the question of how to respond to issues that are strictly bilateral in nature or limited to just a few of its members.
The Philippines, for example, has long pressed for a tougher Asean position in order to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis China, something that other Asean countries have been reluctant to endorse fearing it will only lead to further confrontation.
There is, in fact, a sense within Asean that the Philippines has mismanaged its handling of the issue, a view that is also shared by quite a few Filipino commentators. Now that the United States has signalled its reluctance to be drawn into the dispute, Asean leaders are hoping Manila will reassess its position.
Asean needs to realise, however, that its greatest strength in dealing with China or any one else for that matter, on this or any other issue, is its own unity and solidarity. United it stands, divided it falls.
All issues that affect regional security, whether bilateral or multilateral in nature, need to be managed together for the good of the whole Asean community.
Asean leaders must, therefore, find common purpose to help develop an effective framework to resolve these kinds of disputes.
In the end, the options, short of war, in the South China Sea are limited.
China and the Asean countries can put aside their competing claims and jointly work to exploit the resources of the South China Sea, as Malaysia and Thailand have done, or resort to international arbitration.
The former could well lead to a real zone of peace, cooperation and prosperity and cement the already burgeoning relations between China and the Asean countries. The latter is bound to leave sore losers and a divided region.
For China, a win-win solution with Asean will also undercut efforts by other powers to exploit regional fears of China in an attempt to build new alliances aimed at Beijing.
Whatever it is, the worst thing Asean and China can do is to let the issue fester.
By Dennis Ignatius Diplomatically Speaking
> Datuk Dennis Ignatius is a 36-year veteran of the Malaysian foreign service. He has served in London, Beijing and Washington and was ambassador to Chile and Argentina. He was twice Undersecretary for American Affairs. He retired as High Commissioner to Canada in July 2008.
She stated on July 23, 2010 at the ASEAN meeting in Hanoi: "Legitimate claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived SOLELY from legitimate claims to land features." Translation: Why China has claim over some islands/islets so far away from its homeland? Although Mrs. Clinton is a lawyer, she is wrong… based on international convention. There are many other important key considerations (historic claim, administration, etc). If “distance” is the ONLY measure of sovereignty, then US needs to give up Guam; UK needs to give up Falkland Island (to Argentina). And, many islets in the world need to find new owners.
Many people, including many journalists, in the world do not realize that historically, China’s claim on South China Sea islands started in the Ming Dynasty (1368), followed by Qing Dynasty (1644), followed by Republic of China (1911). Some people argue that it started even before Ming Dynasty. The current Beijing government just inherited the national map from Republic of China (in 1949). So this old claim started some 700 years ago and way before USA was born.
I hope people can live in peace as we become more civilized… in cooperation and prosperity. So it is a good thing the countries are proceeding to clearly settle on a “new” national boundary/interests arrangement (ownership, benefit sharing, etc) that the neighboring countries can accept… with or without USA help. In my view, the faster the better… so less feeling and fishermen will get hurt.
I understand, as the sole global power, USA has the responsibility to maintain peace and order where it concerns our interests. But we need to be an “honest broker” (to gain goodwill and other benefits), otherwise whatever we do is not sustainable. By starting the discussion on the South China Sea islands with such a BADLY ADVISED statement, Secretary Clinton is SOWING THE SEED of another big problem for America and the Sino-American relationship.
“The earliest discovery by the Chinese people of the Nansha Islands can be traced back to as early as the Han Dynasty. Yang Fu of the East Han Dynasty (23-220 A.D.) made reference to the Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yiwu Zhi (Records of Rarities) , which reads: "Zhanghai qitou, shui qian er duo cishi"("There are islets, sand cays, reefs and banks in the South China Sea, the water there is shallow and filled with magnetic rocks or stones"). Chinese people then called the South China Sea Zhanghai and all the islands, reefs, shoals and isles in the South China Sea, including the Nansha and Xisha Islands, Qitou.”
There had been NO dispute over the sovereignty rights of China to the South China Sea and the numerous islands in it, by any other countries, for all those periods.
But, when the Western colonialists started invading and squatting all over Asia in the last 300 years, taking advantage of the declining power of the Qing Dynasty, they intentionally carved out various regions of land and sea as their “protected territories”. Then they forced the Manchu Court to sign many bogus “treaties” in which they claimed the Western “sovereignty rights” over these Chinese territories!
“In 1933, France reasserted its claims from 1887 to the Spratly and Paracel Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, built weather stations on two, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French war ships visited the nine islands. In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands.”
“In 1933, France reasserted its claims from 1887 to the Spratly and Paracel Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, built weather stations on two, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French war ships visited the nine islands. In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands.”
On September 4th, 1958, the Government of the People’s Republic of China issued a declaration of the Chinese sea territories.
Excerpt from the above link (that are translated to English):
“(1) This width of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China is twelve national miles. This provision applies to all Territories of the People's Republic of China, including the mainland China and offshore islands, Taiwan (separated from the mainland and offshore islands by high seas) and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Archipelago, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha islands (Paracells), the Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands (Spratlys) and other islands belonging to China.”
(The Declaration by PRC, as clear from the above excerpt, specifically spells out the Xisha and Nansha islands, among other islands and sea boundaries.)
On September 14, 1958, ONLY 10 DAYS LATER, Vietnam Prime Minister at the time, Pham Van Dong, sent a cable to the Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, on behalf of the Vietnam government, expressing complete acknowledgment and support for China’s claims.
Excerpt from the above link (that are translated to English):
“The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam acknowledges and supports the Declaration on September 4th, 1958 by the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), on the PRC’s decision concerning China’s sea territories.”
The International community has been overwhelmingly supporting China’s legitimate and inviolable sovereign on the sea territories claimed by China.
“2. The International Civil Aviation Organization held its first conference on Asia-Pacific regional aviation in Manila of the Philippines on 27 October 1955. Sixteen countries or regions were represented at the conference, including South Viet Nam and the Taiwan authorities, apart from Australia, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Japan, the Laos, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and France. The Chief Representative of the Philippines served as Chairman of the conference and the Chief Representative of France its first Vice Chairman. It was agreed at the conference that the Dongsha, Xisha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea were located at the communication hub of the Pacific and therefore the meteorological reports of these islands were vital to world civil aviation service. In this context, the conference adopted Resolution No. 24, asking China's Taiwan authorities to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, four times a day. When this resolution was put for voting, all the representatives, including those of the Philippines and the South Viet Nam, were for it. No representative at the conference made any objection to or reservation about it.”
It is evident from all above historic records, international treaties, and acknowledgment by ALL regional neighbor-countries, that China has the INDISPUTABLE lawful and legitimate sovereignty over the South China Sea and all the offshore islands on it.
US won't take sides in South China Sea dispute
Updated: 2012-05-02 12:24 By Zhao Shengnan (China Daily)
The United States said on Monday that it would not take sides in the Huangyan Island standoff between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea and reiterated support for a diplomatic resolution to the territorial dispute.
Washington does not take sides on competing sovereignty claims there, but has a national interest in maintaining freedom of navigation as well as peace and stability, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, after meeting top diplomatic and defense officials from the Philippines.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin attended the 2+2 dialogue with their US counterparts, Clinton and Leon Panetta, in Washington.
"The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all those involved for resolving the various disputes that they encounter," Clinton said. "We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claims."
Gazmin alluded to tension with China over islands in the South China Sea as he called for the need to "intensify our mutual trust to uphold maritime security and the freedom of navigation".
"We should be able to work together to build a minimum, credible defense posture for the Philippines, especially in upholding maritime security," Gazmin said.
The Philippines and China have been embroiled in the Huangyan Island dispute, with both nations stationing vessels there for nearly three weeks to assert their sovereignty.
China on Monday highlighted remarks made by the Philippine president about de-escalating the tension over the island, urging the Philippines to "match its words with deeds" and return to the proper pathway of diplomatic solutions.
Speaking of the tension, Philippine President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III said he had issued instructions to his military, telling them not to intensify the issue.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin stressed that there is no change in China's stance of using diplomatic channels to peacefully resolve the issue, which was triggered when a Philippine warship harassed Chinese fishermen and raised concerns over China's sovereignty of the island.
The Philippine officials also stressed diplomacy when asked what aid they had requested from Washington, saying that Manila sought to bring the South China Sea issue to international legal bodies.
Clinton reaffirmed the US commitment to the 60-year-old Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, calling the Philippines a country "at the heart" of the new US strategy toward the Asia-Pacific.
Washington would help improve the Philippines' "maritime presence and capabilities" with the transfer of a second high-endurance (coast guard) cutter this year, Panetta said.
The US emphasis on neutrality and a diplomatic resolution would encourage Manila to be more restrained on the Huangyan Island issue, said Fan Jishe, a US studies expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
"Washington doesn't want territorial disputes between its Asian allies and China to be obstacles to China-US relations," he said.
After nearly 45 years, issues remain for Asean to sort out, ponder over and resolve satisfactorily.
SOME developments have lately resulted in multiple challenges confronting Asean. Chief among these is the lack of understanding of Asean, its origins and its purposes, notably within Asean member countries themselves.
Since its inception in 1967, Asean has tended to avoid calling a spade a spade for reasons of national sensitivities or avoiding controversy. The founding meeting in Bangkok that year was even described as an effort to improve economic relations, even though more serious geopolitical issues such as Indonesia’s relations with Malaysia and Singapore were at stake.
Another reason for the lack of an Asean awareness among Asean peoples is that official proceedings have been dominated and even monopolised by national elites. Even with economic development as a key issue from the beginning, the Asean Business Council took three decades to be established.
Security drill: Cambodian riot police during an exercise to prepare for the upcoming Asean summit in Phnom Penh. Cambodia hosts the 20th Asean Summit next month. — EPA
Social and cultural issues would have to take even longer. Everything had to undergo a laborious process of initial proposal, official consideration, outsourced study (such as an Eminent Persons Group), considered refinement, likely revisions, possible horse trading, formal approval and final adoption. Even if the entire process is necessary, it could also be expedited. More important yet, parallel processes could occur to dovetail the sequential stages.
That would mean involving more people and agencies than just the heads of government, key ministers and secretariat staff. And that would imply educating, engaging and empowering more people in Asean countries about Asean and its work.
Thus the third reason for the lack of awareness is that little or nothing has been done to inform and involve more people in the region. It might be said that an inherent danger lies in a new generation of Asean citizens growing up under-informed about regional imperatives, except that even the older generation is equally unaware.
Some critics have blamed the custom of consensus-reaching for the plodding pace, but other regional organisations like the EU have not experienced consensualism as a nagging problem. The respective agendas of individual governments, which change quicker and less predictably in some Asean countries than in others, could be a factor.
Nonetheless, Asean’s challenges of economic productivity and competitiveness, geopolitical confidence-building and comfort levels, and socio-cultural peace and stability remain. If anything, developments such as a rising China and India, a resurgent Russia and a revitalised US foreign policy focus on East Asia only make Asean cohesiveness more urgent yet also more fraught.
Asean itself has responded by scheduling an Asean Community by 2015 comprising three pillars: an Economic Community, a Security Community and a Socio-cultural Community. Could this goal be too ambitious, since it had taken 21 years just to convene the third Asean summit?
To help the process along, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy Study Group recently held a roundtable conference on Malaysia-Indonesia/Thailand/Vietnam relations in strengthening Asean Regionalism.
The non-official occasion was intended to complement, not compete with, formal Asean processes and proceedings. Still, a fundamental question asked by some delegates was why the event had to be limited to just four of the 10 Asean countries.
The answer should be obvious: limits on resources including time, and a limited effort such as this had to start somewhere. More Asean countries would participate in future roundtables, and Asean itself provides for small initial efforts in its “10 - x” formula.
There were reasons for the four Asean countries that participated through their retired officials and student representatives: Malaysia and Indonesia as the key founding members of Asean, Thailand as Asean’s origin in the 1967 Bangkok Declaration, and Vietnam in generally being regarded as the main country among the newer (CLMV) members.
Another question concerned more frequent use of currency swaps among Asean countries, and the prospect of greater reciprocal use of national currencies in bilateral trade. This would avoid exchange rate costs with the use of a third-country currency such as the dollar or euro.
Some participants thought the membership of 10 countries was sizeable and a likely source of problems in discouraging common agreement. If that is an issue now, it could grow since Timor Leste is poised to be the 11th member, with Papua New Guinea conceivably waiting in the wings.
Some foreign participants credited Malaysia with having achieved considerable success in economic and educational development. The disparities within Asean also mean that each country could excel in a particular area, so it would help all members if a panel of best practices for a variety of sectors could be established, with contributions from each country based on its experiences and achievements.
A reference was made to Asean’s policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of member nations by way of a criticism of its seeming inaction. However, that policy as derived from Bandung is a universal principle common to all regional groupings, without which unwelcome and hostile unilateral actions would be rife.
More to the point, Asean appears to have adopted non-intervention to the extent of not even remarking on the travails of a member country even when problems spill over into a neighbouring country. In practice, concepts like “non-intervention” are largely defined by Asean to begin with, so Asean can act without seeing itself as acting.
An underlying but unspoken issue was that Asean countries are fully capable of handling the problems within and between them. There is no basis for major power intervention, since that would unduly complicate and compound the original problem.
Cross-border issues are routinely managed, while rival maritime claims linger. The only enduring problem is an inability to form an all-Asean military force, even if that is desirable.
To help boost Asean awareness, Asean scholarships, student exchanges, an Asean Day in August, a Visit Asean Year promoting the region as a tour package, and a popular talent-entertainment programme appealing to young people are possibilities. But until today, even an Asean lane at airport immigration counters as proposed by a former Malaysian foreign minister more than 20 years ago has still not taken off.
In reshaping an Asean for the times, its basic ingredients of peace, freedom, neutrality, amity and cooperation need to be maintained while addressing current needs and challenges. But whether there is any Asean leader today with the requisite regional vision is still very much an open question. Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara
42 Viet women in a house — and surviving mainly on rice The Star
GEORGE TOWN: Forty-two Vietna-mese women living together in a house here have allegedly been surviving mainly on rice for the past few months.
The women, aged between 30 and 50, are said to be unable to return to Vietnam as their visas have expired.
They have been staying in a semi-detached double-storey house in Jalan Tull for the past few months. The house has four rooms and a toilet upstairs.
Help us get home: The Vietnamese women in tears while relating their plight to Koay at their home in Jalan Tull, George Town, Friday.
There is also a living room, a small room, toilet and kitchen downstairs.
It is said that up to five women would sleep in a room while some had to sleep in the living room.
The women's plight came to light when their neighbours informed the authorities after finding the noise made by the women, especially at night, intolerable.
One of the women, known only as Hai, said most of them were jobless and could not send money back to their families.
“Some of us have been in Malaysia for a year and a half but our visas have expired,” she said.
She claimed that some of the women used to work as cleaners at a hospital and were paid RM50 a day but their wages were later reduced to RM25.
“In the end, we were not paid at all though we continued to work. Only a few of us are still working,” she said, adding that their agent was holding on to their passports.
When reporters visited the house, three women appeared sickly.
There were some fish, vegetables and eggs in the refrigerator.
Hai claimed that their agent would send 20kg of rice to them every three days.
She added that they would add salt to their rice for flavour.
“We have been calling the Vietnamese embassy every day, asking them to help us go home, but we are still waiting for a response,” she said.
She added that all they wanted now was to return home.
She alleged that they knew of 26 other Vietnamese and Nepalese foreign workers who were men, living in another house.
The women cried when relating their misfortune to Pulau Tikus assemblyman Koay Teng Hai who visited them yesterday.
Koay said he would contact the Vietnamese embassy as soon as possible.
“There are similar cases in Penang, such as in Paya Terubong.
GEORGE TOWN: The 42 Vietnamese women “stranded” in a house here will be sent to a women's protection centre in Kuala Lumpur.
OCPD Asst Comm Gan Kong Meng said they had obtained an interim protection order from a magistrate's court here to send the women, aged between 31 and 50, to the centre.
He said the case was being investigated under Section 14 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007.
ACP Gan said an initial investigation showed that the women had not been paid for two months, adding that police had gone to the house and taken a statement from Tran Thi Hai, 31, who used to work as a cleaner in a hospital.
Sad plight: Some of the Vietnamese women sobbing uncontrollably while eating rice and vegetables donated by Malaysians who went to their aid upon learning about their plight in the newspapers. — MUHAMAD SHAHRIL ROSLI / The Star
“We were told they have been on their own for about one month. They have to buy food and daily necessities using their own money.
“We have informed the Immigration Department, the Vietnamese Embassy and Interpol. We will complete investigations soon.”
Meanwhile, several caring Malaysians sent food items such as cooking oil, vegetables, beverages and rice to the house in Jalan Tull off Jalan Residency while some have shown interest in hiring the women as domestic maids.
Pulau Tikus assemblyman Koay Teng Hai said he had contacted the embassy, which was aware of the problem faced by the women.
“The embassy has contacted the Immigration Department and a meeting will be held tomorrow,” he said. It was reported that the women survived on white rice for the past few months while their agent would send 20kg of rice every three months.
Meanwhile, 34 Nepalese and Vietnamese men, aged between 20 and 40, who are in the same situation as 42 Vietnamese women, would also be sent to a protection centre in Kuala Lumpur, said Koay.
He said they used to work as cleaners at Penang Hospital and claimed they had the same agent as the Vietnamese women.
State Immigration assistant director Mustaffa Kamal Hanaffi said investigations would be carried out to trace the agent responsible for the 76 Vietnamese and Nepalese men and women.
A search for the flight on FlightAware.com showed its status as "result unknown" and included a map that depicted its partially completed route.
