SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»Gelbe Gefahr« in Australien
Mrz 28th, 2018 by Gao

Das Buch Silent Invasion von Clive Hamilton (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Buch Silent Invasion, Untertitel: The Truth About Aliens, Alien Abductions, and UFOs von Debra Marshall) ist symptomatisch für ein China-Bild in Australien und in anderen Ländern. In Australien soll jedoch ein Gesetz über die Nationale Sicherheit gegen die »gelbe Gefahr« verabschiedet werden, das Anlass zur Sorge gibt.
David Brophy: ‚Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia‘ by Clive Hamilton (Australian Book Review)

Lawyers, media organisations, human rights NGOs, and unions have been lining up recently to warn us of a serious threat facing civil liberties in Australia. It comes in the form of Malcolm Turnbull’s new national security laws, which, in the name of combating foreign influence, would criminalise anyone who simply ‘receives or obtains’ information deemed harmful to the national interest. Yet there, in the midst of this chorus of opposition, stood economist and public intellectual Clive Hamilton, with his Chinese-speaking collaborator Alex Joske, to tell us that to resist the threat of Chinese authoritarianism we would have become more authoritarian ourselves.
A notable contributor to 2017’s crop of ‘Chinese influence’ reportage, much of Hamilton’s new book will be familiar to readers of that genre. Yet in Silent Invasion: China’s influence in Australia, he has not missed the opportunity to turn things up a notch.
The loss of Australia’s ‘sovereignty’ has been a common, if slippery, talking point in the debate so far. Here, Hamilton cuts through the confusion: the ‘invasion’ in the book’s title is no mere flourish. The People’s Republic of China is laying the groundwork in order, one day, to make territorial claims on our nation. Failure to heed the author’s prescient warnings ‘would see Australia become a tribute state of the resurgent Middle Kingdom’.

China Scholars Issue Open Letter to Protest Australia’s Draft Spy Bill Amendment (News Lens)

As scholars of China and the Chinese diaspora, we write to express our concern regarding the proposed revision of Australia’s national security laws. We do so on two grounds; first, the new laws would imperil scholarly contributions to public debate on matters of importance to our nation; and second, the debate surrounding ‘Chinese influence’ has created an atmosphere ill-suited to the judicious balancing of national security interests with the protection of civil liberties.

Kirsty Needham: China influence debate needs to calm down amid stigma (Sydney Morning Herald)

More than 30 China scholars in Australia, including world-renowned sinologist Geremie Barme, have urged the Turnbull government to delay its foreign influence legislation amid warnings that Chinese Australians are being stigmatised.

China’s influence in Australia: Maintaining the debate (Asia & the Pacific Policy Society)

We the undersigned are scholars of China, the Chinese diaspora, China-Australia relations and Australia’s relations with Asia. We are deeply concerned by a number of well-documented reports about the Chinese Communist Party’s interference in Australia. We strongly believe that an open debate on the activities of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in this country is essential to intellectual freedom, democratic rights and national security. This debate is valuable and necessary.
It is vital that the debate is driven by fact-based research and reporting rather than sensationalism or racism. It is also vital that this debate is not stifled by self-censorship. We firmly believe the current debate is not characterised by racism and that it is crucial for Australia to continue this debate…
[T]he Australian government and civil society must remain vigilant…

Inselstreit | Liu Wencai | Geschichte
Aug 4th, 2016 by Gao

Alfred Gerstl: Südchinesisches Meer: Friedliche Lösung im Interesse aller (Reispapier)

Der Spruch des Internationalen Schiedshofes über den Streit zwischen den Philippinen und China hat weitgehende Folgen für die Territorialkonflikte im Südchinesischen Meer. An einer diplomatischen Lösung führt jedoch kein Weg vorbei – sie liegt im Interesse aller Beteiligten.

Vanessa Piao: Grandson of China’s Most-Hated Landlord Challenges Communist Lore (New York Times)

Sorghum and Steel. The Socialist Developmental Regime and the Forging of China (chuang)

The story we tell below explains the century-long creation of China as an economic entity. Unlike the nationalists, we do not hope to uncover any secret lineage of culture, language or ethnicity in order to explain the unique character of today’s China. Unlike many leftists, we also do not seek to trace out the “red thread” in history, discovering where the socialist project “went wrong” and what could have been done to achieve communism in some alternate universe. Instead, we aim to inquire into the past in order to understand our present moment. What does the current slowdown in Chinese growth bode for the global economy? What hope, if any, do contemporary struggles in China hold for any future communist project?
Our long-term goal is to answer these questions—to compose a coherent communist perspective on China not muddied by the romance of dead revolutions or the hysteria of rapid growth rates. Below we offer the first in a three-part history of the emergence of China out of the global imperatives of capitalist accumulation. In this issue we cover the explicitly non-capitalist portion of this history, the socialist era and its immediate precursors, which saw the development of the first modern industrial infrastructure on the East Asian mainland…
This first section covers the non-capitalist period, in which the popular movement led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) succeeded in both destroying the old regime and halting the transition to capitalism, leaving the region stuck in an inconsistent stasis understood at the time to be “socialism.”

Haager Inselstreit-Urteil
Jul 12th, 2016 by Gao

Bill Gertz: US, China wage legal warfare over control of the South China Sea (Asia Times)

The United States is stealing a page from China’s strategic playbook in using international law as a means to counter expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea.
The three-year old case between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea at the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal in The Hague will end Tuesday when the court’s ruling is announced.
US officials say the ruling is expected to favor the Philippines in the maritime dispute and provide a solid basis in traditional international law for pushing back against China’s claims.

Tom Phillips: Beijing defiant ahead of court ruling on its claims in South China Sea (Guardian)

China has refused to recognise the five-judge court’s authority and on Tuesday morning the country’s Communist party-controlled press lashed out at what it claimed was a United States-sponsored conspiracy to stifle its rise.

Law-abusing tribunal issues ill-founded award on South China Sea arbitration (Xinhua)

The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void.

Unlawful arbitration cannot negate China’s sovereignty over South China Sea (People’s Daily / Global Times)
Arbitration award more shameless than worst prediction (Global Times)
China’s reaction to arbitration depends on provocation (Global Times)

The award of the South China Sea arbitration will be issued at 5 pm Beijing time Tuesday. The US and Japan have claimed that relevant countries, including China, should comply with the arbitration result. They stand in sharp confrontation with China, which has announced that the award would be „nothing but a piece of paper.“ Whether the arbitration will lead to a severe geopolitical crisis has come under the global spotlight.

Tom Phillips, Oliver Holmes, Owen Bowcott: Philippines wins South China Sea case against China (Guardian)

China has lost a key international legal case over strategic reefs and atolls that it claims would give it control over disputed waters of the South China Sea.
The judgment by an international tribunal in The Hague is overwhelmingly in favour of claims by the Philippines and will increase global diplomatic pressure on Beijing to scale back military expansion in the sensitive area.
By depriving certain outcrops – some of which are exposed only at low tide – of territorial-generating status, the ruling effectively punches holes in China’s all-encompassing “nine-dash” demarcation line that stretches deep into the South China Sea. It declares large areas of the sea to be neutral international waters.

Oliver Holmes, Tom Phillips: South China Sea dispute: what you need to know about The Hague court ruling (Guardian)
What you need to know about The Hague arbitration, the China-Philippines sea dispute (Global Times)

The U-shaped, nine-dash line encircling most of the South China Sea is the core of China’s claim. It was first published on a map drawn by the Kuomintang’s Republic of China government in 1947 and then inherited by the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea was never officially disputed until the 1960s.

Zhao Minghao: South China Sea chaos would only add to global woes (Global Times)
Statement of the Government of the People‘ s Republic of China on China’s Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights and Interests in the South China Sea (Xinhua)
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines (Xinhua)
Thomas Escritt, Ben Blanchard: Tribunal says China has no ‘historic’ title over South China Sea (Asia Times)
Taiping, an island not rock, says Taiwan; Philippines, Vietnam hail sea ruling (Asia Times)

While the Philippines and Vietnam welcomed the international tribunal’s ruling on South China Sea, Taiwan rejected the court’s view that defined a Taiwan-controlled island in the waters as a “rock.”

Liu Zhen: Questions of neutrality: China takes aim at judges in South China Sea case (South China Morning Post)

China confident of ability to deal with provocation in South China Sea, says Defense Ministry spokesperson (Global Times)
Lies of Philippines‘ Aquino administration on South China Sea (Xinhua)
Why will China never respect U.S. over South China Sea? (Xinhua)

Shortly after UNCLOS was unveiled in 1982, then U.S. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign, claiming the convention undermined his country’s sovereignty.
In 1994, after UNCLOS was revised to take into consideration American worries about losing control of valuable underwater oil and natural-gas deposits, then U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an updated UNCLOS agreement, although not the entire treaty.

Li Kaisheng: Washington can’t steer Manila’s path (Global Times)
Liu Haiyang: Tribunal award could impair UNCLOS (Global Times)
Graham Allison: Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict (Diplomat)
Wang Wen: Debunking 10 myths about China and the South China Sea (South China Morning Post)
Bill Hayton: China’s ‘Historic Rights’ in the South China Sea: Made in America? (Diplomat)

The current understanding of “historic rights” in the South China Sea in China can be traced back to a U.S. diplomat.

Bill Hayton: China’s South Sea claims were always about emotion, not history (National Interest)

The tribunal’s award is 501 pages long. I’m still reading it, but my favorite line so far comes in Paragraph 270, where the judges say, “The Tribunal is unable to identify any evidence that would suggest that China historically regulated or controlled fishing in the South China Sea, beyond the limits of the territorial sea.” This destroys the implicit misunderstanding at the heart of China’s attitude towards the region—that it, and only it, has been the sole user of the waters between its coast and those of its neighbors.
No one can deny that Chinese traders or fishing communities based along the coast of what is now China made extensive use of the sea. But so did traders and fishers from all the other countries around it. So did merchants from India, Persia, Arabia and Europe. The history of the South China Sea has always been a shared one. Muslim traders built a mosque in Guangzhou in the eighth century, Chinese shipwrights borrowed design ideas from Malay vessels, and the region grew rich on the profits of exchange. The chauvinism about China’s superior and exclusive claim to the sea only emerged in the dying years of the Qing Empire and the chaotic early years of the Republic of China.

Thomas Eder: „China hat Völkerrecht gebrochen“ (8MRD)
Richard Javad Heydarian: China may dispute South China Sea verdict, but it’s a huge setback (Guardian)
Pepe Escobar: Between a Rock and a Hard (South China) Place (CounterPunch)

Beijing is open for talks, as long as Manila sets the ruling aside. Jay Batongbacal, from the University of the Philippines, cuts to the heart of the issue: “Publicly stating that junking the arbitration is a condition for resuming negotiations gives no room for face-saving on either side.”

Alfred Gerstl: Recht oder Macht im Südchinesischen Meer (Standard)

Auch wenn in China die Wogen nach dem Schiedsspruch des Ständigen Schiedshofs hochgehen: Nun gibt es die Chance, den Konflikt unter dem Dach der Assoziation südostasiatischer Nationen zu lösen.

Erdgasvertrag | Inselstreit | Kenpeitai-Dokumente
Jun 15th, 2014 by Gao

Wolfgang Pomrehn: Russland: Gas für China (Telepolis)

Nun ist der Gas-Deal zwischen Russland und China also unterschrieben. Wie erwartet sollen ab 2018 jährlich 38 Milliarden Kubikmeter Gas geliefert werden, berichtet der britische Sender BBC. Über den Preis des Pakets schwieg man sich aus, aber er wird wohl bei insgesamt etwa 400 Milliarden US-Dollar oder knapp 300 Milliarden Euro liegen. Teil des Deals ist offenbar, dass die chinesische Seite in Vorleistung geht.

Gerald Hosp: Der Preis der Symbolik (Neue Zürcher Zeitung)

Die russisch-chinesischen Verhandlungen über Erdgaslieferungen waren lange Zeit zu einem «running gag» verkommen. Jahr für Jahr hiess es, dass der Durchbruch geschafft sei, nur – leider – habe man sich noch nicht auf den Preis einigen können. Während des zweitägigen Besuchs des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin in Schanghai kam nun aber offenbar zwischen dem staatlich kontrollierten russischen Erdgaskonzern Gazprom und dem chinesischen Staatsunternehmen China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) eine Einigung zustande …
Dabei überwiegt noch die Symbolkraft. Erstens sollen die Erdgaslieferungen erst ab dem Jahr 2018 beginnen, ab 2024 wird dann die volle Kapazität von 38 Milliarden Kubikmetern pro Jahr zur Verfügung stehen. Die Erdgasfelder in Russland müssen noch erschlossen, die Pipelines noch gebaut werden.

Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Maya Horin: Myths breed around China’s energy quest (Asia Times)

Those directing our gaze to China’s quest for energy security frequently are critical and, more importantly, often make unwarranted charges about the lengths to which China has been going to realize its energy requirements.
First, it is hinted that China has used military force to satiate its energy hunger. Second, it is suggested that China has made extreme diplomatic concessions to build or sustain partnerships with energy rich countries. Third, it is implied that China’s energy extremism has driven it to build new energy relationships with a slew of countries. Fourth, it is claimed that China’s energy dealings are largely with countries like Ecuador and Venezuela that embrace socialism and are distant from Washington. Fifth, it is asserted that Chinese energy FDI in Africa is encountering a lot of problems, putatively as a result of Chinese shortcomings.

Gerhard Feldbauer: Reaktion auf Ukraine-Krise (junge Welt)

Deutsche Außen- und Militärexperten reagieren beunruhigt auf jüngste eskalierende Spannungen im Ostchinesischem Meer, berichtete das Onlineportal German Foreign Policy (GFP) am Dienstag. Hintergrund ist ein vom 20. bis 26. Mai dort durchgeführtes gemeinsames Flottenmanöver Rußlands und Chinas. Wie RIA Nowosti und Xinhua groß aufgemacht berichteten, übten zwölf Kriegsschiffe, darunter der schwere russische kernkraftgetriebene Raketenkreuzer »Pjotr Weliki«, in gemeinsamen Kampfverbänden auf hoher See zusammen mit Fliegerkräften beider Seiten Rettungsaktionen für entführte Schiffe, U-Boot-Abwehr sowie Luft-Wasser-Angriffe.

Gerhard Feldbauer: Washington spielt Schutzmacht (junge Welt)

Im Konflikt zwischen Vietnam und China um die Xisha- und Spratly-Inseln im südchinesischen Meer bezieht Washington offen Partei gegen Peking und maßt sich eine Schutzmachtrolle für die Anrainer an.

Reuters: Japan and China trade insults over latest East China Sea encounter (Guardian)

Japan has denied Beijing’s claims that its planes came „dangerously close“ to Chinese aircraft in an incident over the East China Sea this week, demanding China takes down the footage allegedly showing the incident.

UN ‚will mediate in China-Vietnam row‘ (BBC)

1974: China and South Vietnam fight a war over the Paracel Islands; China seizes Vietnam-controlled islands.
After war, Hanoi moves closer to Russia, angered by Beijing’s support for Khmer Rouge
1979: China and Vietnam fight a border war; thousands of troops die
1988: Two sides fight over the Spratly Islands; about 60 Vietnamese sailors killed

Nga Pham: Shift as Vietnam marks South China Sea battle (BBC)
James Manicom: The Energy Context behind China’s Drilling Rig in the South China Sea (Jamestown Foundation)
Ian Forsyth: A Legal Sea Change in the South China Sea: Ramifications of the Philippines’ ITLOS Case (Jamestown Foundation)
Andrew Chubb: China’s Information Management in the Sino-Vietnamese Confrontation: Caution and Sophistication in the Internet Era (Jamestown Foundation)

Du Guodong: Lost Voices (News China)

The Jilin Provincial Archives recently published 89 files related to Japan’s Kwantung Kempeitai (military police corps) and the central bank of the puppet state of Manchukuo, which was established in 1932 by the Empire of Japan in Manchuria, which today is the northeastern Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning.
Roughly 90 percent of the published documents are written in Japanese including soldiers’ letters, newspaper articles, telephone records and government surveys. The archives are being claimed as concrete evidence of atrocities carried out by Japan during its occupation of China from 1931 to 1945, including the Rape of Nanking, the operation of military brothels and experimentation on live prisoners of war by Japanese military scientists.

SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»  Host:Blogsport   »  Code:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa