by Admin | May 27, 2014 | News
(BGF) – According to the Philippines’ ABS-CBN News report, China’s state media Global Times said sanctions should be imposed against the Philippines as a response to its move of having plan to let more US troops rotate through the Southeast Asian country, and that it will make the Philippines ponder the choice of “losing a friend” such as China and “being a vain partner with the US.”
Click here to read the full story or visit the ABS-CBN Website.
China should punish PH over US offer: report
January 29, 2012
BEIJING – China should impose “sanctions” against the Philippines after it offered to allow more US troops on its soil, state media said Sunday, amid growing tensions over disputed waters in the South China Sea.
Manila said Friday it planned to hold more joint exercises and to let more US troops rotate through the Southeast Asian country — an offer welcomed by the United States as it seeks to expand its military power in Asia.
China has not yet officially responded to the announcement, which was made during the country’s week-long holiday for the Lunar New Year. The foreign ministry on Sunday did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment.
But an editorial in the Global Times, known for its nationalistic stance, said Beijing “must respond” to the move by using its “leverage to cut economic activities” between the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries.
China also should consider “cooling down” business links with its smaller neighbor, according to the editorial published in the Chinese and English versions of the newspaper.
“It should show China’s neighboring areas that balancing China by siding with the US is not a good choice,” it said.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 25, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: Bullit Marquez/AP)
(BGF) – Jim Gomez, reporting for The Associated Press, recently wrote of U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear’s warning that a miscalculation in the dispute between China and Vietnam could trigger a larger conflict. According to Gomez, Adm. Locklear “urged both nations to exercise restraint” and to develop a legally binding code of conduct that would prevent territorial disputes from escalating into conflicts that would harm the region’s growing economies. Click here to read the full article or visit The Associated Press‘ website.
US Commander Warns About China-Vietnam Standoff
By Jim Gomez
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The U.S. military commander in the Pacific warned Friday that the risk of a miscalculation that could trigger a wider conflict in a tense territorial standoff between China and Vietnam is high and urged both nations to exercise restraint.
Adm. Samuel Locklear also urged Southeast Asian nations and China to hasten the drafting of a legally binding “code of conduct” to prevent territorial rifts from turning into armed conflicts that could threaten the region’s bustling economies.
Southeast Asian diplomats have accused China of delaying the start of negotiations for such a nonaggression pact while it tries to consolidate its control of disputed territories.
Locklear said he was concerned about a three-week standoff between China and Vietnam near the disputed Paracel Islands and urged them to resolve the territorial conflicts on the basis of international law.
“I have serious concerns,” Locklear told reporters. “The risk of miscalculation, I think, is high and we encourage them both to exercise restraint.”
China raised the stakes earlier this month when it deployed an oil rig off in waters also claimed by Vietnam, which sent ships to try to disrupt the drilling operation. Street protests morphed into bloody anti-Chinese riots that damaged hundreds of factories.
Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, who also attended an economic forum in Manila, told The Associated Press in written comments Thursday that “like all countries, Vietnam is considering various defense options, including legal actions in accordance with the international law.” But he said Vietnam would defend itself if it comes under attack.
Analysts have said that countries confronted by China in disputed waters, like Vietnam, may seek a deeper security alliance with Washington.
Click here to read the full article.
by Admin | May 19, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: Reuters)
(BGF) – According to Reuters, and covered in The Japan Times, approximately 700 plaintiffs have filed a case against Japanese firms at a courthouse in Shandong Province, China. The plaintiffs are seeking reparations for forced labor utilized by Japanese companies during World War II. The Japanese firms involved are Mitsubishi Corp (Qingdao) Ltd., Yantai Misubishi Cement Co., Nippon Coke and Engineering Industry Co., and Nippon Yakin Kogyo. While it is unclear how far the suit will progress, some fear that the suit could further damage already strained Chinese-Japanese relations. Click here to read the full article or visit The Japan Times.
Chinese Families Suing Japan Inc. for War Redress in Bigger Numbers
By Sui-Lee Wee and Li Hui
BEIJING – As relations between Beijing and Tokyo plumb a new low, the descendants of hundreds of Chinese men forced to work in wartime Japan are taking big, modern-day Japanese corporations to court, seeking millions in compensation.
Japan invaded China in 1937 and ruled parts of it with a brutal hand for the next eight years. Chinese historians say nearly 40,000 men were taken to Japan against their will to work in mines and construction. Survivors say living conditions were appalling. Many did not make it back to China.
In possibly the biggest class-action suit in Chinese legal history, about 700 plaintiffs lodged a case against two Japanese firms at a courthouse in eastern Shandong province in April, according to Fu Qiang, a lawyer representing the families. Among the plaintiffs are several forced laborers now in their 80s and 90s, and this might be their last chance to seek redress.
The suit was filed against Mitsubishi Corp (Qingdao) Ltd., a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp., and Yantai Misubishi Cement Co., a joint venture between Mitsubishi Corp. and construction firm Mitsubishi Materials Corp., Fu said.
The plaintiffs are each seeking 1 million yuan ($160,100) in compensation and a public apology in several prominent Chinese and Japanese newspapers, as well as the erection of a memorial and monument in remembrance of the forced labourers, Fu said, adding that they also want the companies to fund their legal expenses.
It is unclear whether the lawsuit, along with other smaller cases, will be accepted. But lawyers say there is a good chance they will be heard after a Shanghai court last month impounded a Japanese ship over a dispute that dates back to the 1930s war between the two nations.
The lawsuits could further irritate diplomatic relations. Late last month, China released previously confidential Japanese wartime documents, including some about comfort women forced to serve in military brothels. The files also contain details of the Nanking Massacre — a major source of disagreement between the countries.
The plaintiffs, including families and surviving forced labourers seeking redress, total at least 940, with combined claims reaching at least 865 million yuan, lawyers say.
That figure could rise further as there were nearly 8,000 forced labourers from Shandong during the war, according to Fu.
The other two Japanese companies involved in the suits are coal producer Nippon Coke and Engineering Industry Co., formerly known as Mitsui Mining Co., and stainless steel maker Nippon Yakin Kogyo, the lawyers say.
“When we took the labourers to Japan to negotiate a settlement and listened to their speeches, they moved us to tears,” said Deng Jianguo, a lawyer involved in five of these lawsuits since 2007. “They (the Japanese companies) have the ability to compensate and make amends for (their) past mistakes, but they aren’t doing it. I think, morally, you can’t justify this.”
Similar suits would be filed in central Henan and northern Hebei provinces, Deng said.
Mitsubishi Corp’s spokesman Susumu Isogai said in Tokyo: “We can’t make any comment as we have not received the complaint.”
Takuya Kitamura, a spokesman for Mitsubishi Materials, and Masayuki Miyazaki, a spokesman for Nippon Coke, both declined to comment, saying they had not received any complaints.
A Nippon Yakin spokesman, who declined to be identified, said the company is unaware of any new lawsuits against it.
Lawyers say they are optimistic the latest cases will be heard as the courts have asked them to provide more evidence to their claims.
In 2010, a Chinese court threw out a lawsuit filed by 1,000 forced labourers against Mitsubishi Corp. (Qingdao) and Yantai Misubishi Cement Co., Fu said.
But lawyers say the impounding of the Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. ship is giving them hope.
The seizure had sparked some initial concerns that Japanese assets in China might become casualties in legal battles between Japanese corporations and activists seeking redress. Mitsui later paid about $29 million for the release of the vessel.
Several international war claims experts said it is important to note the acceptance by a Beijing court of a smaller suit in February from 40 plaintiffs demanding compensation for Chinese citizens made by the Japanese to work as forced labourers for Mitsubishi Materials Corp. and Nippon Coke during World War II — a first by a Chinese court.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 22, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: AFP)
(BGF) – This article, featured in The Washington Post, assesses the reasons behind China’s decision to drill for oil off the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea and how the U.S. should respond. According to the authors, China’s actions are likely motivated by its desire to solidify its nationalistic posture at home by exerting control over the disputed region of the South China Sea or to gain control over the increasingly crowded shipping lanes in the region. The authors go onto posit that China has disguised these intentions under the cloak of a commercial oil exploration. Given China’s true intentions, the authors contend that it is critical that the U.S. call China’s bluff by supporting Vietnam, which the U.S. previously said it would not do, in order to provide stability in the region and to counter China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea. Click here to read the full article or visit The Washington Post‘s website.
Beijing’s Actions in the South China Sea Demand a U.S. Response
By Elizabeth Economy and Michael Levi
The China National Overseas Oil Corporation (CNOOC) began drilling in Vietnamese-claimed waters last week, accompanied by more than 70 vessels, including armed Chinese warships. At first glance, this might look like merely another front in China’s quest for natural resources, which has taken Chinese companies to seemingly every corner of the earth.
Yet what is happening in the South China Sea is actually far more dangerous than what has come before — and the forces driving it go well beyond pursuit of energy riches. The United States needs to face up to the full magnitude of the Chinese challenge to have any hope of successfully confronting it. This means not only tough talk but also a willingness to take difficult action.
There has long been speculation that massive oil and gas deposits are locked beneath the South China Sea — 1.4 million square miles bordered by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam and claimed in part by all of them. According to the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources, the area might contain as much as 400 billion barrels of oil, surpassing the bounties of the Middle East.
Most informed estimates, though, are much smaller. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2010 that the region’s undiscovered oil (much of which will never be financially attractive to produce) totals a far smaller 11 billion barrels. It is difficult to believe that China would risk armed conflict for such modest stakes.
Two other forces are essential to understanding what is going on. One is nationalism: The drilling is taking place near the Paracel Islands, which sit within a disputed area of the South China Sea, roughly 120 miles from Vietnam’s coast and well within Vietnam’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone. But China claims the islands based on historical usage and effective exercise of sovereignty, having occupied them since 1974. Backing off from the Paracels would deal a blow to China’s prestige, while underlining Chinese control over the islands would strengthen the leadership’s legitimacy at home.
Chinese leaders are also motivated by a desire to control the sea lanes of the South China Sea. More than $5 trillion of trade passes through the increasingly crowded waters each year. That includes almost one-third of world seaborne oil trade and more than three-quarters of Chinese oil imports (as well as most of the oil destined for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan). The Chinese navy may be too weak to challenge U.S. dominance in key Middle East sea lanes, or even to exercise control over the critical Straits of Malacca, but by operating naval forces across the South China Sea it can gain greater confidence that the United States will not be able to disrupt its supplies.
Beyond these two motivations, it does not hurt that Chinese oil companies are eager to operate in the region. By cloaking its military excursion in commercial garb, Beijing might have hoped to defuse some of the inevitable opposition.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 21, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: Getty)
(BGF) – In this article Professor Seki Hei discusses the impact of President Obama’s recent visit to Asia, as well as the notion of “new type of big power relationship” between the United States and China.
By Professor Seki Hei
The U.S.-Japan Joint Statement and Xi Jinping’s Whitewashed Rampage
The U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Asia in the end of April 2014 brought about two epoch-making events in relation to the national securities of the related nations. One is regarding the defense of the Senkaku Islands in which China and Japan are fighting over their ownership; the President Obama had made a clear statement to recognize “the Senkaku Islands as the target of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty” for the first time as the U.S. President.
Importantly, the statement above was not made just as a verbal promise, but was clearly mentioned in the U.S.-Japan joint statement, which possesses a high official- ness. Since a joint statement works also as the pledge of the U.S. to the world, it is not an option for this world giant, the U.S., to abandon its responsibility over its international joint statement. In short, with this joint statement, the U.S. government had declared to the world, that it is not accepting China’s use of power against the Senkaku Islands, which is under administration of Japan, and that it is prepared to use its military force for the prevention of such case.
Although some media point out that the true intention behind the U.S. bringing out “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty on the Senkaku Islands” is to use it as an exchange condition to lead Japan to compromise in the TPP negotiation, this is not the case. This is because the joint statement including the “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty” was announced as scheduled, despite the fact that the Japanese government did not compromise in the negotiation for the TPP during Obama’s visit in Japan. Interpreting the decision of the U.S. government regarding its defense of the Senkaku Islands as its “condition for exchange” for the TPP negotiation is an excessively distorted and superficial understanding.
Of course, despite President Obama’s clear statement of the “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty”, this does not necessarily mean that there is 100% guarantee that the U.S. army will take action based on the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in case of the emergency in the Senkaku Islands. In fact, it is true that the move of the U.S. military force cannot be predicted until the very moment of an emergency.
The important point here is that the fact that “the move of the U.S. army cannot be predicted” applies for the Chinese side too, who is on the side of attacking the Senkaku Islands. As it is clear from the “New Type of Big Power Relationship”, which I will discuss further later, although China is currently considering compartmentalization of power with the U.S., they are neither ready nor willing to face collision with the U.S. At least for now, it is largely possible that the overwhelming U.S. military force will defeat the Chinese military force. Once China gets defeated in a war against other countries even for once, its domestic affairs will face turmoil and the Chinese Communist Party will definitely find it difficult to maintain its dictatorship. For the Xi Jinping regime, thus, it is too much of a risk to face collision with the U.S. army.
As long as the U.S. move is unpredictable, it would not be a realistic option for China to execute military action on the Senkaku Islands. If there is any possibility for the U.S. military intervention, China would be reluctant for its military action. In this logic, it is clear that the President Obama’s statement of the “application of U.S.- Japan Security Treaty” and the joint statement in which the statement above is included would powerfully serve as deterrents to China’s Xi Jinping regime. It is undeniable for anyone that the possibility of the mobilization of the U.S. military force in case of an emergency on the Senkaku Islands was increased, with this “clear statement of the “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty” and the joint statement by Japan and the U.S. as their national pledges.
Moreover, it is the Xi Jinping regime, who as the party directly involved, taking the statement on the “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty” the most seriously, more than anyone else. Thinking rationally, with the incorporation of the clear statement of the “application of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty” into the U.S.-Japan joint statement, or in other word their “pledges”, the chance of U.S. military mobilization in case of Chinese army’s attack on the Senkaku Islands is now not only a few percent. The chance is, in my view, over fifty percent. In such context, the only option available for the Xi Jinping regime is to abandon its military action on the Senkaku Islands. With the risk of U.S. military intervention, China would never be able to take action. In short, on the very day of April 25, 2014, from the very moment of the announcement of the U.S.-Japan joint statement on the “application of U.S.- Japan Security Treaty on the Senkaku Islands”, the possibility of China’s military action on the Senkaku Islands had been practically diminished.
The U.S.-Philippine Military Agreement – The Return of the U.S. Spearhead
On April 28, President Obama had visited the Philippines as the final destination to visit during his visit to Asia and had a meeting with President Aquino. It was decided to establish an epoch-making agreement between the two countries, before holding the summit conference. The two governments signed a new military agreement, which allows the expansion of U.S. military in the Philippines.
With this new agreement, the U.S. forces will be able to build its own facilities within the Pilipino military’s base, enabling the expansion of its aerial and naval patrol.
As for the possible site for the construction of the U.S. military base facilities, districts including the Subic district, where the U.S. naval force once used as its base, are considered. Anyway, after its military withdrawal from the Philippines after the
end of the Cold War in 1992, the U.S. military forces finally achieved its comeback after 22 years.
The stationing of the U.S. military force in the Philippines 22 years ago was the preparation for the Cold War against the Soviet Union; the intention for the U.S. military force stationing this time may seem apparent. The country who is in trouble with China regarding the ownership of the islands in the South China Sea is the Philippines, and, at the same time, it is widely known in the international society that the conflict between these two counties could possibly end up in a military collision. In a sense, it can be said that it is the Philippines that is at the frontier of preventing the Chinese takeover of the South China Sea.
Since the U.S. military force will come back to the frontier against the Chinese military forces, their target will be nothing but the prevention of China from ruining the “peace and stability” in the South China Sea area with its military power.
As observed above, the strategy of the President Obama for his visit to Asia, which was welcomed with the great deal of fanfare, is apparent.
In short, the U.S. on one hand seeks to prevent China’s rampage by strengthening its relationship with its most important ally, Japan, through its statement of the “defense of the Senkaku Islands”, while on the other hand preventing China’s progress into the South China Sea by realizing the re-stationing of the U.S. military base within the territory of its semi-allied nation, namely the Philippines.
In addition, by incorporating Malaysia, which is in the “central location”, it is sought to complete the containment network.
From this perspective, it can be concluded that President Obama’s visit to Asia, while passing China aside, was actually the “containment diplomacy on China” from the very beginning to the very end.
To have China intentionally omitted from the list of visiting countries and to have Japan and the Philippines, the countries which are strongly in opposition with China, is nothing but a movement that emerged from “containment diplomacy on China”.
The U.S. to determine the shape of “New Type of Big Power Relationship ”
We are now encountering the question of what exactly is “the New Type of Big Power Relationship”. As it is widely known, this catchphrase was proposed up to the United States from the President of China, Xi Jinping. According to the explanation by the Chinese side, it “seeks to avoid the collision between the U.S. and China, and rather pay respect to the core interests of both countries to construct a win- win relationship”.
From its wordings, China’s targets seems not to have any problems; however the most serious issue is that the Chinese claim on the ownership of the Senkaku Islands and its hegemony over vast range of water such as East China Sea and South China Sea are included in its “core interests” and that China is requesting for the “respect”, or acceptance, by the U.S. This is the true intention behind the notion of “New Type of Big Power Relationship” – in short, this is a proposal from China to the U.S. of “compartmentalization theory” regarding their domination over the Pacific region.
In specifics, it divides the Pacific region into two parts, letting the U.S. to dominate the Eastern Pacific, but instead, having the U.S. accept the Chinese dominance over the Western Pacific. Of course, from the Chinese side, if this compartmentalization works, they can avoid collision with the United States and eventually construct a “win-win relationship”
The true intension of the Chairman Xi for his statement “(t)he vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for two large countries like the United States and China” is for this very reason. To “share the Pacific and be friends” is the most important point for the idea of “the New Type of Big Power Relationship” which Chairman Xi proposes.
However, if the U.S. is to accept this “New Type of Big Power Relationship” and China’s “core interests”, the whole region of the Western Pacific including East China Sea and South China Sea will be under the control of China. The power of the U.S. will be excluded from the Asia-Pacific region eternally. In this way, the U.S. will literally lose Asia.
Needless to say, the U.S. would not accept this one-sided “New Type of Big Power Relationship” proposed by China. Asia-Pacific region is the last stronghold for the U.S. to maintain its influence as the world’s giant, and is the “lifeline” that they have protected in exchange for the lives of a hundred thousand soldiers in the Pacific War. Hence, even if the U.S. recoils regarding Syria and Crimea, they will not let China do as they like in the Asia-Pacific region.
On the other hand, because the Asia-Pacific region is an important area for the U.S., careful treatment of China, or the largest political and military nation in Asia, is required. In addition, integration of the economical relationship between the two countries makes China an indispensable country for the U.S. economy.
In such context, one of the important diplomatic themes for the U.S. is how to define and construct “Big Power Relationship” with China, with the precondition of the contradicting situation where its intention is both to prevent Chinese hegemonism and to maintain stable relationship with China. From the analytical perspective of this paper, President Obama’s visit to Asia had clearly presented the ideas and strategies of the U.S. regarding these important diplomatic issues.
As analyzed above, with his visit to Japan, the President Obama had announced the joint statement that specified the U.S. obligation for “defense of the Senkaku Islands”. On his visit to the Philippines, he realized the return of the U.S. military forces back in the Philippines by signing a new military agreement. By taking these two epoch-making moves, which both is targeted at China, the President Obama and the U.S. government had sent out a clear message to the China’s Xi Jinping regime. In short, the U.S. notified two things to the Xi Jinping regime, firstly that the U.S. is not accepting China’s ambition of taking over the control of the Western Pacific including the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and secondly that the U.S. is prepared to prevent China’s adventurous actions with its military forces by cooperating with the allied and semi-allied countries in the region. In this sense, the U.S. had, as a matter of fact, presented a clear answer to the idea of “New Type of Big Power Relationship” presented by the Xi Jinping regime; that the U.S. is not accepting the Xi Jinping’s “New Type of Big Power Relationship”, which is on the premise of China’s control over the Western Pacific.
On the other hand, as mentioned above, with the statements “[w]e have strong relations with China” and “[w]e want to [say to China], we will be a partner with you in upholding international law” the President Obama is transmitting constructive messages to China during his visits in Japan and the Philippines; from the context of the analysis of this paper, this attitude can be interpreted as another form of answer of the U.S. to Xi Jinping’s idea of the “New Type of Big Power Relationship”. That is to say, that the U.S. on one hand is decided to prevent China’s hegemonism, but is also showing its interest to construct a “Big Power Relationship” with China, that would work in favor of the maintenance of the peace and stability of Asia-Pacific region.
In this situation, the ideas and answer of the U.S. toward Chairman Xi’s idea of the “New Type of Big Power Relationship” is absolutely clear. Although the U.S. is prepared to construct a stable “Big Power Relationship” with China, it is not on the basis of the U.S. acceptance of China’s hegemony over the Western Pacific. The basis of the “U.S.-China Big Power Relationship” that the U.S. hopes to secure is one in which China follows the legal rules to protect the peace and order of Asia-Pacific region and to take the path of coexistence and co-prosperity together with the related countries. That is the intention of President Obama’s statements “[w]e want to [say to China], we will be a partner with you in upholding international law” in the Philippines and “[w]e want to continue to encourage the peaceful rise of China” in Japan.
This means that the U.S. had clearly refused with action, Xi Jinping’s idea of the “New Type of Big Power Relationship”, and on contrary, proposed American idea of “New Type of Big Power Relationship” to China.
Through this process, President Obama showed to the world and Xi Jinping, that it is the role of the U.S., not China, to determine the ideal relationship between the U.S. and China, and to establish the rules of the international order in the Asia- Pacific region.
Then Xi Jinping is left with the ultimate decision to make; whether to promote its hegemonism through taking the risk of collapsing with the U.S. and its allies in Asia, or to accept the leadership of the U.S. in this region and the order and rules to coexist with other Asian countries. The ultimate decision is left to Chairman Xi. If the decision works out to be a mistake, the outcome will be disastrous both for Asia and China itself.
by Admin | May 17, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: Str/EPA)
(BGF) – The Guardian reports that anti-China riots in Vietnam have turned violent, with some news agencies reporting up to 20 people dead. Consequently, Chinese nationals in Vietnam are fleeing across the border into Cambodia for their safety. The anti-China riots in Vietnam arose in response to China’s placement of an offshore oil rig near the Paracel Islands, which are subject to competing territorial claims from both China and Vietnam, in the South China Sea. The resulting anger in Vietnam has led many to protest in the streets and vandalize Chinese-owned foreign businesses located in Vietnam. Click here to read the full article or visit The Guardian‘s website.
Chinese Nationals in Vietnam Flee to Cambodia as Anti-China Riots Turn Fatal
By Jonathan Kaiman and Kate Hodal
Violent reaction in Vietnam to China’s expansionist stance in disputed seas has turned deadly, with multiple reports of people being killed during rioting that began with attacks on foreign-owned factories.
Cambodia said hundreds of Chinese nationals had poured across the border from Vietnam to escape the riots.
“Yesterday more than 600 Chinese people from Vietnam crossed at Bavet international checkpoint into Cambodia,” Kirt Chantharith, a police spokesman, told Reuters on Thursday. Bavet is on a highway stretching from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s commercial centre, to Cambodia’s capital, Phnom Penh.
On Thursday the death toll was unclear, although some news agencies reported at least 20 people had been killed.
A top Taiwanese diplomat said rioters had stormed a large Taiwanese steel mill in Vietnam, killing at least one Chinese worker and injuring 90 more. Huang Chih-peng said the violence took place late on Wednesday and early on Thursday at the Formosa steel mill in central Vietnam.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a Chinese contractor and a Vietnamese worker died in the violence. China’s state-run People’s Daily tweeted that 10 Chinese nationals went missing when protesters ransacked a Chinese factory.
A doctor at a hospital in the central Vietnamese province of Ha Tinh told Reuters that five Vietnamese workers and 16 other people described as Chinese died during anti-China rioting on Wednesday night.
“There were about 100 people sent to the hospital last night. Many were Chinese. More are being sent to the hospital this morning,” the doctor said.
Earlier this week mobs burned and looted scores of foreign-owned factories in southern Vietnam, believing they were Chinese-run when many were actually Taiwanese or South Korean. No deaths were reported in those initial attacks.
On Thursday, China’s embassy in Vietnam urged the country’s public security authorities to take “effective measures” to protect its nationals’ personal safety and legal rights. The embassy made the remark in a statement published on its website, adding that China had launched an emergency mechanism to cope with the effects of anti-Chinese riots in its southern neighbour.
Anti-Chinese sentiment has been running high in Vietnam ever since Beijing deployed an oil rig into disputed waters in the South China Sea on 1 May. There have been encounters including ramming and exchanges of water cannon between Chinese vessels operating near the rig and boats from Vietnam, which wants China out of the area.
According to the English-language version of the Tuoi Tre newspaper, some 600 people have been arrested in Vietnam’s southern provinces, where riots eruptedon Tuesday amid reports of looting and attacks on police officers.
The government has since issued stark warnings to the Chinese that continued so-called aggression, which had to date been met with diplomacy, would probably turn ugly if it persisted.
With reports on Wednesday from the Vietnam coastguard that the Chinese had also sent two amphibious ships equipped with anti-air missiles to protect their oil rig, commander Major General Nguyen Quang Dam said it would “make no concession to China’s wrongful acts” and stressed: “Their violent acts have posed serious threats to the lives of Vietnamese members of law enforcement.”
An op-ed piece in the English-language daily Vietnam News was just as transparent with its words: “The Vietnamese people are angry. The nation is angry. We are telling the world that we are angry. We have every right to be angry.”
“China should stop violating international law and respect Vietnam’s sovereignty,” it continued, adding that China’s seeming aggression “smacks of a bull doing something wrong just because it can”.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 16, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto)
(BGF) – According to the Associated Press, in an article published in The Boston Globe, Vietnamese workers have been protesting and vandalizing Chinese-owned factories in Vietnam. The protests were prompted by China’s decision to place an offshore oil rig off a set of islands subject to a territorial dispute between China and Vietnam. Click here to read the full article or visit The Boston Globe‘s website.
Vietnamese target Chinese-owned factories
By Associated Press
HANOI— Several thousand Vietnamese workers protested at Chinese-owned factories on Tuesday, vandalizing some of them, as anger flared at Beijing’s deployment of an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam, a factory executive and media accounts said.
Over the weekend, Vietnam’s authoritarian government gave rare sanction to street protests against China as a way of amplifying its own anger at Beijing. But the protests now appear to be spreading, taking on a violent tinge and directly targeting foreign investment.
An executive at one industrial park said the protests began Monday night and by Tuesday had hit four parks that are home to Chinese and other foreign-owned businesses. He said some factories that refused to stop work were vandalized.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 14, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: Luong Thai Linh/European Pressphoto Agency)
(BGF) – The New York Times, covering China’s decision to place an offshore oil rig in the South China Sea, discussed Vietnams reaction to China’s oil rig. Vietnam asserted that China’s actions are “extremely dangerous” and threaten “peace, stability, security, and marine safety”. However, Vietnam failed to garner much support from its neighbors in its explicit condemnation of China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea. China is a major trade partner to Vietnam, as well as many of the other countries in the region, which led to only indirect, subtle critiques of China’s actions. Click here to read the full article or visit The New York Times‘ website.
Vietnam Fails to Rally Partners in China Dispute
By Mike Ives and Thomas Fuller
HANOI, Vietnam — Vietnam’s prime minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, accused China on Sunday of “dangerous and serious violations” in a territorial dispute that has raised anger toward China here to the highest levels in years.
Mr. Dung’s comments, which were carried in the Vietnamese state news media, were addressed to leaders of Southeast Asian countries attending a summit meeting in Myanmar. It was his strongest statement since China towed a huge oil rig into disputed waters off the coast of Vietnam this month.
“This extremely dangerous action has been directly endangering peace, stability, security, and marine safety,” Mr. Dung was quoted as saying, adding that Vietnam had acted with “utmost restraint.”
Mr. Dung’s comments were uncharacteristically spirited for the typically anodyne meetings of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but they failed to produce collective criticism of China. The leaders, who work by consensus, did not mention the dispute in their final statement on Sunday. Myanmar then released a statement after the meeting was over that expressed “serious concerns over the ongoing developments in the South China Sea,” but did not mention China. It called for self-restraint and the resolution of disputes by peaceful means.
The group’s refusal to weigh in appeared to be a victory for China and underlines how there does not yet appear to be a willingness or ability to address the territorial disputes in the South China Sea collectively. At least five nations claim islands in the sea, a major shipping lane and potential flash point as China becomes more assertive and hungry for resources.
Murray Hiebert, an expert on Southeast Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Vietnam and the Philippines, another vocal critic of Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea, “clearly wanted something a lot stronger” out of the meeting.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean, has been unable in recent years to reach a common position on the South China Sea even as China’s claims have reached more than 1,000 miles southward from the Chinese mainland. A summit meeting in Cambodia two years ago failed to produce a final statement because leaders quarreled over the issue.
China is the region’s largest trade partner, and countries like Cambodia and Laos are large recipients of its aid.
“Within Asean, you have countries that really don’t want to rock the boat,” Mr. Hiebert said. “They are playing it pretty much down the middle.”
Foreign ministers at the meeting in Myanmar issued an oblique statement on Saturday citing “serious concerns over the ongoing developments in the South China Sea,” but did not mention China by name.
Several hundred protesters demonstrated peacefully outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi on Sunday, and Vietnam’s authoritarian government took the rare step of permitting journalists from the state-controlled news media to cover the protest. Signs displayed slogans like “Denounce the Chinese Invasion.”
“We don’t have a problem with Chinese people or their culture, but we resent their government conspiring against us,” Nguyen Xuan Pham, a literary critic, said as the protest swelled in a public park across from the embassy and a military museum.
China towed the oil rig earlier this month to waters near the Paracel Islands, which China controls and Vietnam claims.
China’s state-controlled Xinhua news agency said Sunday that the oil rig was “completely within” China’s territorial waters. The rig is 140 miles off the coast of Vietnam, and about 17 miles from a small island claimed by both countries.
The maritime standoff with China, which has controlled the islands since 1974, has been widely discussed both in Vietnam’s state-controlled news media and on Facebook, which is very popular among the country’s urban middle class.
China is one of Vietnam’s major trading partners, and both countries have nominally socialist one-party governments. But Vietnamese officials sometimes appeal to anti-China sentiments here that are never far from the surface and rooted in a history of conflict between the countries.
Click here to continue reading.
by Admin | May 15, 2014 | News
(Photo Credit: AP)
(BGF) – This article, recently published in The Boston Globe, discusses the issue of Vietnamese protests against China’s placement of an offshore oil rig in disputed waters. As the article notes, Vietnam’s leaders are in a complicated situation in which they want to allow protests against China in order to magnify Vietnam’s opposition to China’s actions in the South China Sea, but they do not want to allow the protesters to turn their attention to Vietnam’s authoritarian rule. This situation is further complicated by the fact that China is one of Vietnam’s largest trade partners. Click here to read the full article or visit The Boston Globe‘s website.
Protests Over China Pose Test for Vietnam’s Leaders
By Chris Brummitt
HANOI— Vietnamese anger toward China is running at its highest level in years after Beijing deployed an oil rig in disputed waters. That’s posing a tricky question for Vietnam’s leaders: To what extent should they allow public protests that could morph into those against their own authoritarian rule?
At one level, the ruling Communist Party would like to harness the anger on the street to amplify its own indignation against China and garner international sympathy as naval ships from both countries engage in a tense standoff near the rig off the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.
But Vietnam’s government instinctively distrusts public gatherings of any sort, much less ones that risk posing a threat to public order. And they also know that members of the country’s dissident movement are firmly embedded inside the anti-China one, and have used the issue to mobilize support in the past.
On Saturday, around 100 people protested outside the Chinese Consulate in the country’s commercial capital, Ho Chi Minh City, watched over by a large contingent of security officers. Dissident groups have called for larger demonstrations on Sunday in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi.
A statement widely circulated on Facebook and dissident blogs called for protests on Sunday morning in Hanoi outside the Chinese Embassy and a Chinese cultural center in Ho Chi Minh City. In past years, authorities have only allowed anti-China demonstrators to walk around a lake in downtown Hanoi.
‘‘Facing the danger of Chinese aggression appropriating the sacred East Sea, the source of livelihood of the Vietnamese over generations, we are determined not to compromise,’’ said a statement posted alongside the protest call that used the Vietnamese term for the South China Sea.
‘‘ We cannot continue to compromise and be vile and sinful to our heroic ancestors and feel ashamed before our future generations,’’ it said.
The last time there was a flare-up in the South China Sea in 2011, anti-Chinese protests lasted weeks, and some protesters voiced slogans against the government. Authorities used force to break them up.
‘‘The state is in a truly difficult position,’’ said Jonathon London, a specialist on Vietnam at Hong Kong’s City University. ‘‘By expressing its stern objections to China, it also invites expressions of dissent from Vietnamese that can take multiple forms. Certainly there is some overlap between those who want to express their anger at China, and those who are calling for basic reforms.’’
Click here to continue reading.
