Standing united: Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan (centre) posing for a group photo with the heads of foreign delegations and their spouses before the commemorative parade marking 80 years since the end of World War II in Beijing. Anwar (front row, fourth from left) and his wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail are in attendance. — Xinhua
BEIJING: The commemorative Victory Parade held by China to mark 80 years since the end of World War II serves as a timely reminder that a nation’s sovereignty must always be defended and safeguarded.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said this is even more crucial in today’s geopolitical landscape, where turmoil persists and the international system is increasingly undermined.
He cited the genocide in Gaza, where the Israeli regime continues its atrocities against Palestinians with impunity.
“For me, the celebration is a reminder that a nation must be free, independent and sovereign. A country’s independence must be respected.
“Our experience of embracing peace and resolution after World War II, and how China rose against violence and colonialism, should serve as a lesson for today’s society, especially in our region,” he told Malaysian media at the end of his working visit to Beijing and Tianjin this week.
Anwar was among the foreign leaders invited by Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the parade at Tiananmen Square yesterday morning.
On his participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Plus Summit 2025 in the port city of Tianjin, Anwar said that although Malaysia is not a member of the SCO, he was invited by Xi, as the current Asean Chair, to attend as a special guest and share his views on global issues.
“So we took the opportunity to attend and share our views,” he said, Bernama reported.
Anwar said he also highlighted the United Nations’ failure to fulfil its mandate in resolving major crises, which has further eroded its global influence – a point acknowledged by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who participated in the meeting.
The Prime Minister added that he had met several world leaders on the sidelines of the summit.
Among them was Myanmar’s acting President Min Aung Hlaing, with whom he discussed and followed up on the country’s peace process ahead of Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan’s visit later this month.
His meetings with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, meanwhile, focused on the situation in Gaza amid Israel’s brutal aggression.
“I asked about the latest developments in Gaza. Many leaders who attended the summit also raised the issue of the ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the suffering of the Palestinian people there,” Anwar said.
He also met with his counterpart from Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, Cambodia’s Hun Manet and Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to discuss boosting two-way trade and investment.
Anwar departed for home yesterday afternoon after attending the Victory Parade and a banquet hosted by the Chinese President.
China held a massive military parade in central Beijing on Wednesday to mark the 80th anniversary of its victory in World War II, pledging the country's commitment to peaceful development in a world still fraught with turbulence and uncertainties
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had a bilateral meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse yesterday. — Bernama pic
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had a bilateral meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse yesterday. — Bernama pic
President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States may mean vastly improved China-US relations, with key agreements signed ahead to mark the occasion.
IF timing is a significant factor in shaping important events, what has it done to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States?
That the visit came at the same time as the first-ever papal address to the US Congress meant that media attention was effectively halved. Xi and Pope Francis had to share the media blitz; prime-time and front-page priorities were split.
But while the Pope’s visit was imbued with spirituality, Xi’s was rich in material significance and consequence. The Xi-Obama huddle was a meeting between leaders of the world’s two largest economies with much to discuss on economic and security matters.
More significantly, the Chinese leader, who is still in the early years of his decade in office, has come to visit his US counterpart in the twilight of the latter’s tenure. Yet China’s state media have no qualms about calling the visit “historic”.
President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. Although that is still more than a year away, it takes time for two distant yet interrelated, lumbering giants – China and the United States – to size each other up to work effectively together.
Not that Xi and Obama are total strangers. They have met repeatedly since 2009, some of those times only incidentally “on the sidelines” of a larger conference.
Still, much is assumed about the decisive nature of personal rapport between leaders. What impact does it have on bilateral relations between nations?
Western societies generally prefer formal agreements such as treaties to benchmark external relations.
For Asian countries such as China, unilateral pledges work as well and their voluntary observance deserves plaudits.
But Asian cultures also value personal connections, such that know-who is at least as important as know-how. Thus, Xi’s careful cultivation of Obama is nearing its end.
That cultivation has included the development of relations between the two First Ladies, and Xi’s affinity with Lincoln High School and Tacoma from early personal associations.
These are human touches, not simply frivolous details. For millions of Americans, they help to flesh out the character of the leader of an otherwise faceless, alien monolith that is China.
The importance of a personable character and thus of personal ties is also more important in the United States than is generally supposed. How can the personal imprint of any particular president on policy be denied?
It is unlikely for US policy on China to be identical with George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House. Election impresario and political mud wrestler Donald Trump will want it to be different again in his White House.
The US election season has begun, and among the seasonal domestic bloodsports is China bashing. How will the next president honour any deals Obama now makes with China?
The soothing argument is that however much a maverick a presidential candidate may be, the heft of political realities and high office will weigh on the incoming president to ensure a pragmatic moderation.
The problem is that nothing can guarantee that outcome.
Consistency in China’s external policymaking is less of a problem. A one-party state ensures that regardless of the personal style or preference of the leader of the day, the collective outlook is constant.
Barring unforeseen circumstances and contingencies, the ends and means in China’s long-term plans are reasonably clear. Individual leaders bring only a certain accent or tenor to dealmaking, with certain emphases such as eliminating corruption.
Xi has also called for a major reset in relations with the United States since at least 2013. No country can reasonably reject that call so there has been progress, even if it has been slow.
Xi’s first state visit is particularly significant in tackling three main themes head-on: essential new major-power bilateral relations, economic cooperation whose need is obvious enough, and military cooperation, which is as important as it may seem unlikely.
In mid-2013, just months into his new presidency, Xi flew to California for a working meeting with Obama to jointly design a new style of US-China relations. They agreed on the importance of that task and on its follow-through.
This month’s summit is the next big step on that road. In the intervening two years, officials on both sides had been working on consolidating that agreement.
The economic aspects of the reset in relations are the most evident. So are their limitations.
The US Foreign Investment and National Security Act (2007) constrains China’s investments in certain key sectors deemed to impinge on key US infrastructure or other national security interests. Foreign enterprises are known to face difficulties in acquiring stakes in US “strategic industries” – oil or high technology assets.
China followed the US example this year with a draft of its own Foreign Investment Law (2015). During the Seattle trip, Xi pledged to facilitate US investments in China, but it was not clear if any aspect of the FIL would be compromised.
Meanwhile, reports of mergers and acquisitions between China and the United States continue to show promise.
The value of M&A deals in the first half of this year exceeded US$300bil (RM1.3 trillion), an increase of more than 60% over the same period last year, which had already set the record for the first half year.
Perhaps most significantly, China and the United States signed annexes to two agreements on major military operations, as well as air and sea encounters.
With China’s growing naval reach and US naval “rebalancing”, sea lanes in the Western Pacific are becoming more traversed as routes tend to overlap. The agreements signed just days before are intended to improve operational coordination and avoid misunderstanding and false alarms.
The first annex covers a telephone hotline between both countries’ defence ministries and mutual notification of an impending crisis. The second relates to airborne encounters, improved communication and better coordination in emergencies.
These are still early days in such China-US cooperation, but a promising start has been made in addressing the most pressing concerns. More cooperation and coordination can be expected.
More broadly, China-US cooperation has yielded results in environmental management and the Iran nuclear deal. More progress may be envisaged over North Korea, anti-terrorism measures and even improved US-Russia relations.
In already focusing on security provisions for the Western Pacific, with all its implications for the South China Sea and the East China Sea, Beijing and Washington have taken the bull by the horns.
This is surely the better and bolder way. The alternative is a somewhat indecisive and half-hearted attempt to face the issues, in part by deferring them to a later time that may never come.
Now that a bold start has been made, the follow-up has to be at least as gutsy. The momentum, once created, has to be maintained and built on to reach satisfactory policy conclusions.
Chinese commentaries have largely pronounced Xi’s state visit as momentous, in terms of China’s intent in soliciting a positive US response to redefining their bilateral relations. That will also require China’s continued commitment to the cause.
Xi’s objectives should also be Obama’s, as evidenced in their discussions for two years now, particularly since these objectives equally serve US and Chinese interests. To help realise them, the United States needs to contribute its share of commitment.
By Bunn Nagara Behind the Headlines
Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.
Xi visit helps US avoid anxiety over China
President Xi Jinping arrived in Washington DC on Thursday. His stay there was the climax of his week-long state visit to the US.
The diplomatic exchanges in recent years seem to have reached a consensus, in which the heads of state prefer to hold a more private and longer meeting, where the subjects of their talks can range from domestic as well as diplomatic matters. Such a scheme helps to build personal trust and enable them to better understand each country's policies.
On Thursday night, Xi and Obama's talk lasted for three hours. On Friday morning the two met again in limited company. When the meeting expanded to more people, the duration was shorter. As such intensive exchanges continue, China and the US are in better place to avoid strategic miscalculation.
As for the achievement of this visit, people are focusing their attention on how much the talks over cyber security can yield and whether a code of behavior to govern the two air forces' encounter will be officially signed. Although the bilateral investment treaty may not be signed this time, an exchange of negative lists for foreign investment will help both sides get closer toward the eventual agreement.
The strategic impact of Xi's visit will take effect in the near future, which will be assessed by how much the tension will ease around thorny issues between the two countries.
Talk about a "Thucydides trap," in which a rising power clashes with an existing power, permeates academic and media circles, especially in the US.
However, both Xi and Obama said they do not believe in the Thucydides trap, which means the two countries will not walk toward the strategic confrontation.
The US had three enemies in history, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. China is different from any of the three. It is larger than Germany and Japan, and it was more efficient than the Soviet Union. The most important thing is that China is one of the largest US trade partners. The US has more interests in China than in any of its allies.
China is still growing at a high speed, though the momentum has slowed. But the growth still outpaces other major economies. The anxiety from the US is inevitable.
Xi's latest visit has helped ease the anxiety from the US. The Chinese and US people may also do something to help their countries avoid the Thucydides trap - give their governments more flexibility so that both can make compromises on thorny matters. - Global Times
The
first official state visit to the United States by Chinese President Xi
Jinping has been applauded as a great success, despite skepticism
expressed by some before the trip.
Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, speaks during a meeting to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the enforcement of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, at the UN headquarters in New York, on June 9, 2014. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)
China has presented documents to the United Nations, proving its sovereignty over the Xisha Islands ...
Beijing’s efforts to garner support at the United Nations in its territorial row with Hanoi reflect its maturing diplomacy as well as its determination to clarify facts and defend interests, observers said.
In a rare move, Wang Min, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, handed a position paper to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday.
Wang asked Ban to circulate the paper, which includes an article from the Foreign Ministry detailing its stance, among all 193 members of the General Assembly.
“Previously, we seldom take maritime territorial rows to the international arena, but this time, China is determined to make the facts clear,” said Luo Yongkun, a researcher on South-East Asian studies with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
He added that Beijing’s efforts to take the row to the UN are a signal of “its diplomacy getting mature”.
“We have strong proof of sovereignty over the region and have done a lot benefiting countries in the region. However, we seldom talk about that on international sites, as some countries do, so few are aware of that,” he said. “It’s not only about the row with Vietnam, but also about defending China’s national image.”
Vietnam has sent notes to the UN about the dispute, harshly criticising China and hinting at the possibility of seeking international arbitration, which Beijing said it would never accept.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said on Tuesday that she hoped the news media can understand the aim of Hanoi in hyping the row.
The Chinese note handed to the UN accused Vietnam of ramming Chinese vessels more than 1,400 times near a Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea recently.
It said China National Offshore Oil Corp has been conducting seismic operations and well site surveys in the area for the past 10 years, and the drilling operation “is a continuation of the routine process of exploration and falls well within China’s sovereignty and jurisdiction”.
The operation area is 31km from the baseline of the territorial waters of China’s Xisha Islands, and between 246 and 289km from the coast of Vietnam.
“Vietnam also sent frogmen and other underwater agents to the area, and dropped large numbers of obstacles, including fishing nets and floating objects, in the waters,” the paper said.
It said Vietnam’s actions violated China’s sovereignty, posed “grave threats” to Chinese personnel on the rig and violated international laws including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
“China sent the note to tell the international community the truth and set straight their understanding on the issue,” Wang said after delivering the position paper.
However, he called for maritime disputes to be settled through negotiation between the parties directly involved.
Chen Xiangyang, another researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said Beijing’s move is a “justifiable defence” against Hanoi’s provocation at the UN.
He said that on this issue, China also has to fight the biased reports of Western media and some countries taking sides with Vietnam regardless of the history and facts. — China Daily / Asia News Network
Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.
THE Russian incursion into Ukraine’s region of Crimea has,
understandably, drawn strong critical response from the United States
and the European Union. However, an impartial observer cannot fail to
note the staggering hypocrisy evident in the Western response to
Russia’s military actions.
International law: It is alleged that the Russian
military intervention is a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty
under international law. It probably is.
This is despite the fact that the Russian expedition was at the
behest of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected and
unlawfully deposed President.
What is noteworthy is that Russia acted under grave provocation and in circumstances that the US would never tolerate.
Background: Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been encircling Russia with military and missile sites including one in Ukraine.
Nato has enlisted many former Soviet republics into its fold.
Russia is understandably sensitive about its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine and Nato’s presence on its borders.
This is no different from President John F. Kennedy’s alarm when the
USSR, under Nikita Khruschev, installed missiles in Cuba in the
Sixties.
In addition to military encirclement, a US organisation, namely the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was operating in Ukraine and
funding 65 projects, grooming replacements for President Yanukovych and
resorting to psychological warfare.
The NED was founded in America in 1983 to promote its foreign policy objectives abroad.
In recent times Ukraine was mired in an economic crisis and Russia
and the EU were in a bidding war to salvage it. Russia earmarked
US$15bil (RM49bil) in economic assistance. The EU offered US$800mil
(RM2.6bil) plus access to EU goods and services.
When Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych aligned with Russia
against the EU proposal, the Western backed opposition took to the
streets.
The US-funded National Endowment for Democracy was complicit in
fuelling the disorder. Radical forces gained ascendency and violence
begat violence.
Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected President, offered to
set up a unity government, bring electoral reform, effect constitutional
changes and call early elections.
Unfortunately, negotiations broke down. He was then ousted in a US-supported coup and replaced with US chosen stand-ins.
The Ukrainian Parliament then acted foolishly to enact a series of
draconian laws offensive to ethnic Russians in provinces that were
carved out of the old Soviet Union. Yanukovych sought Russia’s help to
protect the ethnic Russian population.
Under these circumstances, the Russian Parliament authorised Russian
President Vladimir Putin to deploy troops inside Ukraine to protect the
Russians living there.
US exceptionalism: The US has a long history of
similar and even bloodier interventions as Russia’s. It has bombed or
invaded 30 countries since World War Two.
In the last decade itself, there were full-scale invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up charges plus bombing of Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia and Libya.
US drones blow up “enemy combatants” in many parts of the world with sickening regularity.
The US keeps Syria and Iran under constant threats.
It refuses to join the International Criminal Court lest its international crimes be prosecuted.
Despite its professed belief in democracy, Washington has a sordid
record of collaborating with right-wing military officers to overthrow
elected leaders who do not do Washington’s bidding.
A partial list would include Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran (1953),
Jacobo Arbez in Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende in Chile (1973),
Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti twice, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (2002),
Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2009), Mohammed Morsi in Egypt (2013) and now
Yanukovych in Ukraine (2014).
A close parallel to the Russian intervention was President Bill
Clinton’s invasion of Haiti in 1994 to reinstall Haiti’s elected
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Russia has not gone that far regarding Yanukovych.
Besides the US, France is notable for its recent military
interventions in its former colonies of Mali and Central African
Republic.
Unconstitutionality: The US alleges that the
Crimean referendum that resulted in an overwhelming vote to join Russia
was contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution.
In fact, the trampling of the Ukrainian Constitution was equally
evident in the ouster of the democratically elected President, which the
US lustily cheered.
Under the Constitution of 1996 (which was restored by Yanukovych in
2010) Parliament has the right to impeach a President for treason or
other crimes by a three-fourths majority.
This majority was not obtained. The impeachment must be reviewed by a
Constitutional Court and it is not clear whether this mandatory
procedure was complied with.
Also, it is the PM and not the Speaker of the House, who should under the Constitution fill the vacant presidency.
Secession: If Crimea’s secession is illegal, can
the US explain its support for the secession of Bosnia, Kosovo,
Slovakia, the Falkland Islands, East Timor, Scotland and Catalonia?
In fact the West was delirious about the break-up of Sudan.
One could point to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (1966) that “all people have the right of
self-determination”.
Cold war: The Crimean crisis reignites the Cold War
between Russia and the West. At stake is Ukraine’s return to the
Russian sphere of influence or its drift towards the West.
Alternatively, the country will split into two – its Western part
drifting towards a reluctant Europe and the South and the East remaining
aligned with Russia.
Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.
The Crimean Tartars face an uncertain future in Russia.
In the meantime, one cannot but marvel at the breathtaking hypocrisy
of all sides – the US and EU on Ukraine and Russia on Chechnya.
William Blum puts it well: “Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected”!
Contributed by Shad Saleem Faruqi Reflecting On The Law
> Shad Faruqi, Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM, is a
passionate student and teacher of the law who aspires to make difficult
things look simple and simple things look rich. Through this column, he
seeks to inspire change for the better as every political, social and
economic issue ultimately has constitutional law implications. He can be
reached at prof.shad.saleem.faruqi@gmail.com. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
BEIJING, Sept. 16 (Xinhua) -- Releasing the geographic coordinates of
Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets marks China's latest move to
affirm its sovereignty and administrative jurisdiction over the islands,
according to a maritime expert.
China has had the islands under continuous surveillance for a long
time, said Jia Yu, vice director of the China Institute for Marine
Affairs attached to the State Oceanic Administration (SOA), in an
interview with Xinhua on Saturday.
The SOA announced the exact longitude and latitude of Diaoyu Island
and 70 of its affiliated islets while publishing location maps,
three-dimension effect graphs and sketch maps for the islands on
Saturday.
Since 2009, the SOA carried out a general survey of all Chinese
islands, including the Diaoyu Islands, and announced their standard
names and locations in March, Jia said.
"Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets have been an inherent part
of Chinese territory since ancient times and China has indisputable
sovereignty over the islands," Jia said.
Announcing the geographic codes is an important step for the country
to exercise its administrative jurisdiction over the islands, he said.
"Only the sovereign state and its government can do that and no other
nation, organization or individual has the right to do it. Even if they
did, the announcement would be invalid," he said.
The move also aims to help the public learn about the islands more
vividly through the location maps, three-dimension effect graphs and
sketch maps, provided that it remains difficult for the general public
to visit the islands, Jia said.
"Through these documents, the country will conduct better
surveillance and protection over the islands for future development,"
Jia added.
On Monday, the Chinese government announced the base points and
baselines of the territorial waters of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated
islets, as well as the names and coordinates of 17 base points.
Also on Thursday, China's permanent representative to the United
Nations Li Baodong met with UN Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon and filed a
copy of the Chinese government's Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement
with the United Nations.
"The two sets of coordinates are meant to maintain China's sovereignty over the land as well as its adjacent waters," Jia said.
UN receives China announcement on Diaoyu Islands baseline
The United Nations has received a copy of Chinese government’s
Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement, submitted by China’s permanent
representative to UN, Li Baodong.
A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the document
will be dealt with appropriately on the basis of the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea. On Thursday, Li Baodong met with Ban Ki-moon, and
filed the copy, officially fulfilling the country’s obligations as
stipulated in the UN Convention.
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states are
required to deposit with the UN chief charts showing straight baselines
and archipelagic baselines, as well as lists of geographical
coordinates.
"The euro area debt crisis remains the biggest threat to the global economy," said the representative from the UN Department of Public Information, Newton Kanhema, to reporters during a press conference here on Thursday.
"An escalation of the crisis could result in severe turmoil in financial markets," he said.
The WEPS report reflects that, although some growth has been seen in developed countries, they continue to face significant challenges, particularly in Europe. The WEPS forecasts that the economic situation will "remain tepid" for 2012, with a slow- down in China's growth to an estimated 8.3 percent, while India is expected to grow between 6.7 to 7.2 percent during the 2012- 2013 term.
As a proposed solution to the dwindling global economy, assistant secretary-general for DESA, Jomo Kwame Sundaram, stressed the importance of cooperation between all countries.
"International cooperation is extremely important," said Sundaram. "International cooperation is important, because it will ensure, all countries, and all economies will benefit from [ it]."
As developed countries continue to struggle to bounce back, the report says they have to address four major issues: deleveraging banks, firms and households that continue to restrain normal credit flow; the continuous high rate of unemployment; the fiscal austerity responses to rising public debts; and the exposure of banks to sovereign debts, partnered with weakened economies that prolong the stagnation of the crisis.
The report also stresses that the "re-orientation of fiscal policies should be internationally, coordinated, and aligned with structural policies that support direct job creation, and green growth." - Xinhua
Many 'firsts' in impressive formations displayed in China's massive V-Day parade
Play Video