Being a president of a country requires a lot more than the ability to self-censor for political correctness. This article published on CNN tells us the more important issue that has been overshadowed by the discussion on Trump’s political correctness: Actually, Trump has a point.
Take a look at the parade of elites who have come out against Trump in recent days: Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Meg Whitman, etc. These people have always been successful and rich no matter what. But while they have been doing well, a lot of Americans have not. So why should Americans who have not been doing well follow their lead and try to keep the status quo?
The question now comes down to why the mainstream media is giving the elites so much more air time.
The Trump campaign is not only up against the elites, who have most of the wealth in the country, but also up against the mainstream media.
What is worse, the mainstream media that the Trump campaign is up against is not only powerful, but also deceitful and manipulative, as made clear in this article: Russia, Trump and Manafort: A Test of the News.
Granted, Trump himself, like a lot of Republicans, is prejudiced and immature. But the mainstream media is trying to make him look much worse than that.
Neocon’s support among non-Americans is very strong and is a major reason why neocon is so strong in America. There are many people around the world who think that America should be their savior. When faced with oppression within their countries or regions, they do not know what to do. They can only think of asking for help from someone stronger who may want to help them out. That is why a lot of people around the world as well as people who have immigrated to the US from other countries think that the United States should interfere in any way possible, including militarily, in other countries’ and other regions’ affairs. America being tough physically is what they hope.
What these people do not know is that America’s greatest strength is not a strong military. Relying on a strong military to solve the world’s problems is the thinking of the old world, a world where there are no rules, where there is no rule based order, where disputes are resolved through force.
Americans can not let people with old world thinking to lead them back to the dark age.
When you are standing with neocons, you are trying to take America and the whole world back to the dark age.
Mr. Khizr Khan’s support for Hillary Clinton inspired me to write this post. I have nothing against Muslims or Muslims’ rights. I am just not worrying about political correctness. I am more worried about the direction America and the world are heading.
The Philippines had negotiated with China over their South China Sea disputes for many years before going to court. It is very obvious that bilateral negotiations have not been working for them. So why is China still insisting on having bilateral negotiations rather than accepting arbitration?
The answer is very simple. Arbitration results are beyond China’s control.
Bilateral negotiations sound like a good way to resolve disputes when compared to armed conflicts. But bilateral negotiations work only when both parties in the negotiations are willing to compromise. They do not work when one party is not willing to compromise and insists that something is not negotiable.
When bilateral negotiations fail, that is when arbitration is needed.
Another problem with China’s insistence that bilateral negotiation is the only way to resolve disputes is that while negotiations are ongoing, China does not stop activities in the disputed territory that may need to stop because, as long as no results come from the negotiations, China still has “indisputable sovereignty” over the disputed territory. So if bilateral negotiations never come to a conclusion, China can do whatever in the disputed territory forever. That will give China the incentive to never compromise in the negotiations and let them fail.
Rule based orders are often not accepted by the strong. The strong believes that they can get what they want with their strength and should always be in control as long as they are strong. A rule based order will challenge that. It makes the strong feel vulnerable, which is especially unacceptable to them.
However, a rule based order protects the weak and keeps the peace. Without a rule based order, armed conflicts can break out, because there are often more than one party who are confident of their strength or want to test or prove their strength. This is the reason why there have been armed conflicts throughout history. The reason for rule based orders to come into existence is to avoid armed conflicts.
We should not go back to the time when there is no rule to rule the world, when armed conflicts are the way to settle disputes, just because a strong nation does not want to accept a rule based order, as suggested by some.
By the way, bilateral negotiation works only if both parties are sincere in resolving their disputes and so are willing to compromise. It does not work when one party insists that there are certain things that are not negotiable. If bilateral negotiations always work, we will not need any legal system.
Last time, they used a Black man. This time, they use a woman. History is made again and again. But has it helped anyone? If the election of a Black man did not help African Americans, what make you think that the election of a woman will help women?
Maybe issues that concern women will now be paid attention to. But why are these issues still there after all these years since Hillary Clinton became the First Lady? What will a woman head of state be able to do to make a difference? Have Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Park Geun-hye been able to do anything for women? If they have, they are not known for being champions of women’s rights.
If you still can not imagine how women’s rights will not be championed during Hillary Clinton’s presidency, take a look at how the Democratic Party establishment is treating Progressives. The Democratic Party establishment has made a lot of promises to Progressives. But now, before any vote is even cast, it does not even bother to do anything substantial to woo them. Everything that has been done has been to attract the establishment of the Republican Party – the polar opposite of Progressives. If it is somehow possible for Progressives to stay in the same tent with the Democratic Party establishment, how is it possible for Progressives to stay in the same tent with the Republican Party establishment – the one that represents everything that Progressives have been fighting against?
Thanks to the recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, we now have a better idea on how to settle the dispute between China and the Philippines over some part of the South China Sea.
If I understand what is said in the article “This tiny islet in the South China Sea is now officially a “rock”—and the implications are global” correctly, China gets to keep the islands and do whatever with them, while the Philippines get to fish and explore and extract natural resources within its EEZ. China can not stop the Philippines from doing what she is allowed to do according to the UNCLOS. The Philippines can not evict China from the islands that China is occupying or forbid China from doing whatever with those islands. China only has 12 nautical miles around each of those islands for her own use, and can not stop ships from passing near those islands or stop airplanes from flying near those islands as long as the ships and airplanes are more than 12 nautical miles away from those islands.
If the dispute is settled this way, China can not complain that she has been forced to lose some of her territories, while the Philippines still gets to use her EEZ, and Taiwan can just relax – no one is trying to force Taiwan out of Taiping Island (Itu Aba).
As I understand it, when a country has signed up to the UNCLOS, it is allowed to sue other UNCLOS member states, and allows itself to be sued by other UNCLOS member states as well. So when a country has signed up to the UNCLOS but ignores rulings issued by a UNCLOS authorized court, it gives itself an advantage over all other countries, whether they are UNCLOS member states or not, and thus undermines the rule of law.
Don’t make a commitment to something that you are not sure whether you can commit yourself to or not. It is not a crime not to sign up to the UNCLOS. But it is crime to sign up to the UNCLOS and then ignore a ruling issued by a UNCLOS authorized court. The fact that there is no way to enforce the ruling does not mean that not respecting it is not a crime.
It is amazing how, after eight years of the Obama presidency, some Progressives have still not given up hope in the Democratic Party. Now the party has drawn yet another cake for them: Clinton Vows Speedy Push to Overturn No-Limits Campaign Spending. Obama made a lot of promises and did work on them, but how many of his promises have been delivered?
What worries me more about Hillary Clinton is that she may turn out to be someone like the current Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as described in this article: Erdogan Has Nobody to Blame for the Coup but Himself. It will take a long article to explain why. In short, it is a gut feeling.
Once Hillary Clinton is elected as the President, it is likely that she will be reelected, since the lousy Presidents in recent years have all got reelected. If the United States waits until the second term of Hillary Clinton’s presidency to realize that she is not good for the country, the United States of America may have been destroyed beyond repair.
This map has been shared among Chinese netizens as proof that China owns the South China Sea. I am sharing it because I can see from this map why people can not agree on who owns the South China Sea.
Chinese who think China owns the South China Sea see the word “China” written under “Paracel Islands” and point to that as evidence that China owns the South China Sea. However, people who disagree with them can easily see that while this map was made in 1947, Vietnam, which declared independence from France in 1945, was not even on it. This is proof that this map was not completely correct.
If this is the earliest map in which the South China Sea was shown as part of China, then it is not logical to conclude that the South China Sea has been part of China “since ancient time”.
It is possible that some parts of the South China Sea have been occupied by the Chinese since some time after the end of WWII because China was an ally during WWII. That is probably the best argument for China to be among the owners of some parts of the South China Sea.
All countries around the South China Sea have been using the South China Sea since ancient time. Even countries from other parts of the world have been using the South China Sea since ancient time. Having used the South China Sea does not give a country exclusive rights to it.
By the way, if the map above is correct in describing the Paracel Islands as a Chinese territory at the time, Vietnam will have to find later maps to prove that the Paracel Islands had somehow become Vietnamese territory after 1947, or find some way to prove that the Chinese wrest control of the Paracel Islands from Vietnam illegally in or before 1947. Vietnam may argue that the islands were passed on to the Chinese illegally. But is there any remedy for it?
This issue is critically important, and so has to be repeated and elaborated on.
The first and most stressed upon reason for the Chinese government to oppose the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s handling of the South China Sea disputes is that the court decided to rule on sovereignty. The Chinese government has been saying it loud and clear that what the court has been doing in this case is illegal because the court does not have the right to rule on sovereignty, and that since the court’s decision is illegal, no one should pay attention to it.
The word “illegal” accompanies every mentioning of the court’s decision in the Chinese media all day long, day after day. So whether the court’s decision is really illegal is an important issue.
In fact, the court did not rule on sovereignty. In this case, it did not have to rule on sovereignty because all countries that have signed on to the UNCLOS have given up their historical rights to the sea, and the court’s decision is only for countries that have signed on to the UNCLOS. If China does not want to be bound by the decision, she just needs to drop out of the UNCLOS. Accusing the court of making an illegal decision is incorrect and so will not have any meaning.
The way things are going, China does not get punished for not respecting the court. So China does not need to accuse the court of anything to get away with not respecting the court. China might as well stay quiet.