Archive

Posts Tagged ‘international politics’

Xi Jinping’s U.N. Speech

September 30th, 2015 4 comments

xi at unPresident Xi Jinping made an important speech in which he outlined a better way for the international community to move forward: not with hegemony, but with an eye toward win-win cooperation.

Below is a transcript. An official U.N. copy can be found here. Read more…

Why Asia Should Say No to Mr. Abe’s Vision of International Law for Asia

June 25th, 2014 2 comments

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe[Editor’s note: the English version of post was first posted on Huffington Post and can be found here; and the Chinese version can be found on Guancha.cn here]

SHANGHAI — A few weeks ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Shinzo Abe made a bold pitch to Asia to buy in on a new type of Japanese leadership. According to Mr. Abe, the peace that is at the foundation of the Asia Pacific’s unprecedented growth can no longer be guaranteed. Without naming China by name, Mr. Abe warns of a new danger that looms on the horizon. The Asia Pacific needs Japanese leadership and a new affirmation of “international law.”

These are heavy words for uncertain times. But should Asia buy in? In his speech, Mr. Abe talked extensively about The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, declaring his government’s strong support of the Philippines and Vietnam in their claims against China.

From China’s view, this was a provocative and dangerous articulation of law. China has never taken any actions or made any claims in the South China Sea that limits the freedom of passage. That is made abundantly clear with China’s ratification of the UNCLOS in 1982 and its signing of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002 reaffirming its “respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea.” Read more…

The Euphemism of Freedom – Case Study on Google in the Aftermath of Benghazi

September 14th, 2012 54 comments

Whenever a for-profit – or even non-profit – organization professes to do good, to be a society’s guardian – as Google has – I feel queasy. It’s not that I think Google (or more generally corporations, NGOs, charities, even churches) is inherently evil.  It’s just that no non-government entity owes society at large a fiduciary duty 1 per se, as governments do.

Take as a case study Google – that self professed guardian of Freedom.

In the aftermath of the recent violence in Benghazi, Google has taken itself to task to block access to inflammatory videos that may have caused the violence.

According to the New York Times: Read more…

Notes:

  1. The purpose (legal duty even) of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The obligation of non-profits is to their sponsors and donors … and incestuously to itself. The duty of churches is – well if you are pious – to God, although often a God who cares only for a segment of society, who may be so hateful of the rest as to condemn them all to eternities of hell.

On the Mind-Numbing, Sensationalistic Use of Emotionally Charged Words in International Politics

January 12th, 2009 176 comments

The recent tragedies in Gaza have reminded me again the mind-numbing role the sensationalistic use of emotionally charged words can play in international politics.

Recently, Israel railed against the Vatican when Cardinal Renato Martino, the president of the Council for Justice and Peace of the Vatican, characterized Gaza as a “concentration camp.”  According to the NY Times: Read more…

Obama Wins the U.S. Presidency!

November 5th, 2008 70 comments

Ok – this is not exactly about China.  But heck, it’s been a big night!  What are your thoughts about the election?  Want to offer your predictions for the next four years (or eight if you are that high?) – esp. in terms of the global economy, energy policies, international politics, etc.?

P.S. I want to say that I do feel for McCain.  He is a great man and would have made a great president.  But symbolism can matter.  And unfortunately for McCain, an Obama presidency simply symbolizes “change” a lot more congently than a McCain presidency this time around…