It’s no secrete that a lot of Chinese admire Westerners, try to imitate Westerners in every way possible, including having plastic surgeries to look more like Westerners.
For your reference, here is an article that lays out the similarity between the Chinese government and the US government: “The DC echo chamber must accept that China is emulating U.S. behavior“.
“Rules are for the little people” is also explicitely stated as the reason why China should not be contrained by international laws in an article being shared on Wechat.
So, if the US government wants China to do something or not do something, show China that the US government is doing just that.
By the way, this is one of the reasons why I think Hillary Clinton should not be the President of the United States. Imagine that there are two Hillary Clinton in this world, what would it be like?
There is a major mistake in my previous posts concerning the recent Permanent Court of Arbitration case on the South China Sea disputes. The case was not about the ownership of a territory. It was about what China and other countries around the South China Sea are entitled to according to the UNCLOS.
The reason why I made this mistake could be that I was misled by the Chinese government into mistakenly believing that the case was about sovereignty.
In fact, the court was not ruling on sovereignty as the Chinese government has been protesting. (The Chinese government is accusing the court of issuing a ruling against the laws for the reason that, according to the Chinese government, the court has ruled on sovereignty.)
The reason why the court was able to make a ruling on what each country around the South China Sea is entitled to is that when any country signs up to the UNCLOS, she gives up her historic rights to the sea. The basis for the court to make the ruling was not sovereignty, as the Chinese government has been claiming.
For China to avoid being constrained by the UNCLOS, China needs to leave the UNCLOS instead of attacking a court that makes a ruling based on UNCLOS.
When I said China should ask for opinions from others on the disputes in the South China Sea, I meant to say China should ask for opinions from some reputable courts of law, not from the court of public oppinion. Even though courts of law can also be bias, they are more impartial than the court of public oppinion. If not, lawyers and courts are not needed.
It is easy to imagine setting up an artificial court of law, using computer programming. But it is hard to imagine setting up an artificial court of public oppinion, as the public are more driven by emotion and self-interests than by reason and laws.
If it is impossible to find a court that all parties in a dispute can trust, just imagine that we can write a computer program that, with all the relevant laws and facts in a database, can generate a ruling.
Relying on the court of public opinion, as the Chinese government has been doing in its handling of the South China Sea disputes, is in fact turning the settlement of the disputes into a power struggle.
Rage is intimidating. So people fake it sometimes, just to intimidate others. How can I tell that the Chinese government’s outrage at the Permanent Court of Arbitration is fake? Real outrage comes from a sense of being mistreated beyond one’s expectation, as in “I can’t believe what they did to me”. As the Chinese government did not even bother to make an effort to pursuade the court by participating in the arbitration, choosing to publicly villify the court instead, I do not think that they expect the court to be able to be fair to them. Can you get angry at receiving something that you have expected?
Another reason for me to believe that the outrage is fake is that if the Chinese government believed that it had a strong case, it would have participated in the arbitration no matter what. Since it chose to bypass the opportunity to present its case, I do not think that it was very sure about its case. Since it was not sure about its case, it should not be as surprised and so as angry as it looks.
By contrast, I see the Taiwanese government’s outrage at the court as more real. The court’s finding concerning Taiwan’s holding in the South China Sea is surprising to a lot of people. I think the court’s reasoning could have been affected by the fact that the Taiwanese government could not add input into the case because inputs could only be added by the Chinese government.
By the way, I have seen similar fake outrage in Hillary Clinton and Amanda Knox.
Beneath the false appearance of outrage is a desire to be in control.
Rights are a lot more important than benefits. People who have rights can use their rights to work for their benefits, which can be limitless. People who only have benefits will have limited benefits – whatever benefits they are given.
When you are only looking for benefits, you can easily be bought, even giving up your principles for the benefits. This is what I think is happening to some Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders. It can also be what is happening to the new government of the Philippines.
Some Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary are now happily accepting Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton has promised them some of the benefits that they have been fighting for. These Democrats have given up their principles of not being corrupted by Wall Street. They have basically allowed themselves to be bought by Wall Street through Hillary Clinton. They have now become part of the “evil empire” that they fought against not too long ago.
The new government of the Philippines also seems to have expressed their willingness to be bought. They seem to say that if they get a share of the natural resources in the disputed area, they will not mind letting China claim the ownership of the area. While avoiding confrontation is desirable, giving up your principles for it is not. Besides, whether China can make a claim of the area involves not only the Philippines but the whole world, as this is a matter of principles for the whole world. Relying on military forces and power struggles rather than convinvcing arguments to secure the ownership of a territory is not acceptable to a world that wants the rule of law and equal rights for all.
When you see benefits as the most important, you stop being a person of principle and will not be taken seriously as a result.
In my opinion, China is lacking in the use of persuasion and is too ready to use force in territory disputes. So is Japan. Neither country has gone to court to present their arguments. Both are engaging in power struggles and are ready to use force as a first resort.
The United States has not been helping to move Japan in the right direction in the dispute in the East China Sea. As a result, China has been copying what Japan has been doing in the East China Sea to the South China Sea.
If the United States wants to lead, she does need to be really impartial and tell every country to do the right thing. Otherwise, China will not listen. When you are teaming up with one party in a dispute and vow to defend their interests, it is impossible to persuade the other party in the dispute to do the right thing.
The Chinese government’s position has always been that China has “indisputable sovereignty” over the territory that the Philippines is also making a claim of. Since China thinks that the ownership of the territory is not up for debate or negotiation, what does China think is up for debate or negotiation with the Philippines? Other than asking others for their opinions, what can the Philippines do? And yet, the Chinese government is complaining that the Philippines did not want to negotiate, opting instead to take the case to court.
Going to a court that does not have any means to enforce its ruling is nothing but asking for an opinion. China can ask for an opinion from another court if she does not trust that court. But not asking for anyone’s opinion and insisting on self-righteousness is not going to be convincing at all. In Chinese, what China is doing is called 唯我独尊, meaning seeing oneself as the only one that deserves any respect, not having respect for anyone else.
By the way, I do not understand why you have to get approval from people you want to sue to sue them, which is what China is insisting in this case. China is complaining that the Philippines did not ask for China’s approval before taking the case to court.
When more people are out of work, the governments try to stimulate the economy using quantitative easing, which devalues the currencies. Devaluing a currency helps increase exports and thus create more jobs. But it also shrinks the domestic market and causes more job loss. In the end, the effect of the devaluation of currencies in many countries is more job loss around the world. That is why the world econnomy is in trouble.
All governments need to change their strategies to develop their economies, from relying heavily on export, to relying on domestic consumption. Stop all the quantitative easing and the world economy can grow again.
Wall Street is serving some but not most Americans, but is controlling America through the establishments of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Both parties’ establishments are serving the same Wall Street. That is why when the establishment of the Republican Party lost in the Republican Party Primary, they vow to vote for Hillary Clinton, who represents the Democratic Party establishment, which also serves Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders can endorse Hillary Clinton all he wants. But the Independents will not follow his lead on this. They voted for him in the Democratic Primary because they are against Hillary Clinton and the Wall Street that she represents, or because they want change. Why would they want to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election?
Even some Democrats will not vote for Hillary Clinton. They have already been fooled by Obama. They will not be fooled by Hillary Clinton, who will be the same as Obama, again.
It is unfortunate that no mature candidate who can represent the people has showed up yet. But being genuine, even though immature, is better than being dishonest and manipulative.
As I understand it, the Permanent Court of Arbitration does not have any means of enforcing its ruling. So the court’s ruling is in realty not binding (see this post’s first comment) whether China partcipates in the case or not. The case is just an opportunity for China and the Philippines to present their arguments proving their ownership of a disputed territory. By not participating in the case, China does not gain by avoiding legal actions against her, but loses an opportunity to present her arguments proving her ownership of the territory in dispute.
By the way, people do not usually refuse to participate in a case out of fear that the court will be prejudiced against them. When you are confident of your righteousness, you would tell anyone who would listen, without being concerned with the audience’s impartiality. That is a human nature. People only protest the court when the outcome is not what they have expected. When people refuse to participate in a case and accuse a court of being prejudiced against them even before any finding has been issued by the court, it is because they want to be in control and they feel that the finding by the court is out of their control.