Abbott handled his approach to Japan (“my friend Shinzo Abe”, etc.) much more successfully than he did towards Indonesia. I guess he was trying to emulate Howard’s truly extraordinary success with SBY (and this the same Howard who got Indonesia’s nose out of joint by intervening in East Timor !). Howard became a master of subtlety as PM. Abbott was a bull in a China shop.
Bhutan isn’t an enclave, it’s a small country, and it is part of a much larger Tibetan cultural region.
As for ‘the most peaceful people on earth’ although they were ultimately defeated they brought the entire British Empire to its knees, at the height of its power. Bayinnaung, one of the greatest military commanders in world history, is also worthy of mention.
Is this written by an elected representative of the Melanesian people? Or even just a Melanesian? Or is he part of the ruling Indonesian elite? “Nothing about us without us.”
China is a paper tiger. In the last war against Vietnam, Chinese troops proved that they lacked capacity to fight the Vietnamese who had been fighting for more than twenty years. China dare not attack Vietnam again, I can assure you.
The Bamar are some of the most peaceful people on Earth. It is Mr Smith and his ilk that went from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi groupies, projecting all their WESTERN nonsense onto her, not knowing a damn thing about Myanmar, and lo and behold, she is a Bamar loyalist (which, having known her, she has been for 40 years), so no Mr Smith has joined the “Rohingya” racket, as perhaps whining about Israel has become boring, so its the Buddhists turn. Naturally, people being beheaded in Bangladesh on a daily basis by Hizbut Tahrir and other extremist Islamic groups must be one of those enclaves of Islamic tolerance that Mr Smith wants to see established in Myanmar, as well.
Sitting in Hanoi and reading Professor Abuza’s remarks it is interesting to see what my Vietnamese colleagues have to say about this ruling. On the one hand they were elated although they think whatever the moral ground the Philippines might have they cannot match it up with the capacity to insist China recognize this ruling. But on the other hand they think what was “nine dashes” may well be one continuous line and Vietnam may simply have to “negotiate” on a bilateral basis with China, which of course is what China “demands” or “requires” or “prefers”. I am not sure what the consensus really is but it is likely to be one that China will not enter into negotiations any time soon. However, Vietnam may well wait to see if the newly elected Philippine President is less “bellicose” – at least verbally – than previous presidents. Of all parties to this dispute, apart from Taiwan, Vietnam knows China much better than the other parties and having been “invaded” in 1979 and of course Vietnam has a greater capacity to “bite” than the Philippines that has to limit itself to it’s “bark”.
‘…people who want to live in their own mono-cultural, mono-religious enclaves. You find this thinking among Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.’
Abrahamic religions certainly, Hinduism possibly…but where exactly are these mono-cultural enclaves of Buddhism?
‘In Myanmar, as elsewhere, the horror scenario is one where Muslim extremists get seriously into the fight.’
The horror will be for the Saudi supported Bangladeshis. The Burmese are one of the most formidable martial races in the world.
If you have not already done so, I suggest you look at Bill Hayton’s book, The South China Sea. He’s also just appeared in a video on the National Interest website.
“Hansonites !” A dead give away on your sentiment .
As for religious extremist what one see in Myanmar have been sectarian violence.
Respectfully, please keep them that way, especially looking at Myanmar Hx
You need to see a true religious extremist acts besides strapping bomb and blew up among the crowd, as in accounts of Hindu against Muslim or vis versa going at each other in the former British Raj.
Comparatively Buddhist extremist, an oxymoron, do not even register in any extremist scale.
The good new is the Buddhists are more than tolerant to wards every religion, except when Buddha is desecrated.
Some how loss all tolerance for everything, go figure.
Perhaps President Tran Dai Quang will end up like Chris Patten being condemned as ‘a snake, prostitute for a thousand years, triple violator and tango dancer’.
China sees the South China Sea Arbitration as a proxy war. The declared victor is the Philippines. Behind the Philippines the cheer leaders are Vietnam, Malaysia, Korean and Japan. The USA is the ring leader. Taiwan surprisingly is on the side of Mainland China, for a change.
I do speak Putonghua (Mandarin) and I assure you President Xi Jinping is a Fascist and China has steadily worsened since the reform period of Zhao Ziyang, a far, far better leader, who was himself, “reformed”. China has always been this way. Nothing good, that is non-material, ever lasts.
Very much agree that China’s past humiliations do not give it a license to inflict similar unilateralism or hegemonic ambitions on SE Asian countries. I also think however, it makes no sense to ignore the history behind China’s actions, including the “collective trauma” that has resulted from its colonial era experiences, whether manufactured, genuine or some combination of the two. It also makes no sense to pretend that international law has always been level playing field.
I don’t see China’s reaction to the ruling as any particular threat to ‘progress on global governance’. I should acknowledge that, of the three main North Asian countries, China is the one that I know least well: I have only been there once and I don’t speak Chinese.
Consequently, I have no feel for how far China will press its claims in the South China Sea. Unlike some other observers, I admit that I see the South China Sea largely as a question of the need to create a balance between China and Southeast Asia in the region, rather than in terms of the issue’s broader international implications.
It seems to me outrageous (‘egregious’, in your admirable vocabulary) that China should seek to sweep up all the tiny dots on the map that lie in the waters of the South China Sea and exploit whatever resources that exercise affords it. No Southeast Asian country imposed an ‘Open Door’ on China nor established settlements within China where extraterritorial legal rights prevailed. There are no grounds for China’s attempt to humiliate Southeast Asian countries, simply because the imperialist West once humiliated China.
I harbour the suspicion that, unless Indonesia defends its Natuna EEZ effectively, China may one day disinter some Ming dynasty document showing that China once had sovereign rights in the Natunas.
Ken — by departure the author means withdrawal from the League of Nations project. But to make this crystal clear the text has been changed to reflect that.
There is, of course, a precedent of “non-participation and non-acceptance” of a ruling by a third party to settle an international dispute. In the Nicaragua case of the 1980s, the then Ronald Regan-led US administration took a “non-participation and non-acceptance” stance when the International Court of Justice accepted the case; it eventually passed a ruling that went against the US.
Subsequently, although Nicaragua submitted the case twice to the United Nations Security Council for discussion, the US used its veto as a permanent Security Council member to foil its passage. Noticeably, the Security Council’s members such as Britain and France and Thailand, too, refused to support Nicaragua’s demand for the implementation of the ICJ ruling, by abstaining from voting on the discussion under various pretexts. By abstaining from voting, these countries indicated they, as Security Council members, chose to take into consideration extensive political factors, though they could support the ICJ verdict.
The Nicaragua case testifies that not all rulings of international courts are recognized or implemented by one or the other party. A comparison of the cases whose rulings were implemented and those whose rulings were not recognized shows the factors that would decide whether the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in the Philippines’ case is recognized and implemented include whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the case and whether it passes a flawless ruling. Different from the South China Sea arbitration case－in which the ruling is likely to stop short of having enough and binding content for implementation－the ICJ verdict in the Nicaragua case explicitly said the US should stop violating international law and compensate the losses it has caused to Nicaragua. So if the US, which has ignored the ICJ verdict, pressures China to implement the arbitral tribunal’s ruling, it will be guilty of using double standard.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s containment constitution
That’s why 80% of Thais support the current military government.
care to provide a valid source for that ?
Thailand’s containment constitution
http://www.un.or.th/2016-thailand-draft-constitution-english-translation/
The future of Australia-Indonesia relations
Abbott handled his approach to Japan (“my friend Shinzo Abe”, etc.) much more successfully than he did towards Indonesia. I guess he was trying to emulate Howard’s truly extraordinary success with SBY (and this the same Howard who got Indonesia’s nose out of joint by intervening in East Timor !). Howard became a master of subtlety as PM. Abbott was a bull in a China shop.
Tolerance in the time of terror
Bhutan isn’t an enclave, it’s a small country, and it is part of a much larger Tibetan cultural region.
As for ‘the most peaceful people on earth’ although they were ultimately defeated they brought the entire British Empire to its knees, at the height of its power. Bayinnaung, one of the greatest military commanders in world history, is also worthy of mention.
The West Papua wrecking ball?
Is this written by an elected representative of the Melanesian people? Or even just a Melanesian? Or is he part of the ruling Indonesian elite? “Nothing about us without us.”
Hanoi’s hopes rise with China’s dashed nine-dash line
China is a paper tiger. In the last war against Vietnam, Chinese troops proved that they lacked capacity to fight the Vietnamese who had been fighting for more than twenty years. China dare not attack Vietnam again, I can assure you.
Tolerance in the time of terror
The Bamar are some of the most peaceful people on Earth. It is Mr Smith and his ilk that went from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi groupies, projecting all their WESTERN nonsense onto her, not knowing a damn thing about Myanmar, and lo and behold, she is a Bamar loyalist (which, having known her, she has been for 40 years), so no Mr Smith has joined the “Rohingya” racket, as perhaps whining about Israel has become boring, so its the Buddhists turn. Naturally, people being beheaded in Bangladesh on a daily basis by Hizbut Tahrir and other extremist Islamic groups must be one of those enclaves of Islamic tolerance that Mr Smith wants to see established in Myanmar, as well.
Hanoi’s hopes rise with China’s dashed nine-dash line
Sitting in Hanoi and reading Professor Abuza’s remarks it is interesting to see what my Vietnamese colleagues have to say about this ruling. On the one hand they were elated although they think whatever the moral ground the Philippines might have they cannot match it up with the capacity to insist China recognize this ruling. But on the other hand they think what was “nine dashes” may well be one continuous line and Vietnam may simply have to “negotiate” on a bilateral basis with China, which of course is what China “demands” or “requires” or “prefers”. I am not sure what the consensus really is but it is likely to be one that China will not enter into negotiations any time soon. However, Vietnam may well wait to see if the newly elected Philippine President is less “bellicose” – at least verbally – than previous presidents. Of all parties to this dispute, apart from Taiwan, Vietnam knows China much better than the other parties and having been “invaded” in 1979 and of course Vietnam has a greater capacity to “bite” than the Philippines that has to limit itself to it’s “bark”.
Tolerance in the time of terror
@ John Smith
“but where exactly are these mono-cultural enclaves of Buddhism?”
I suggest you read up on Bhutan.
Tolerance in the time of terror
‘…people who want to live in their own mono-cultural, mono-religious enclaves. You find this thinking among Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.’
Abrahamic religions certainly, Hinduism possibly…but where exactly are these mono-cultural enclaves of Buddhism?
‘In Myanmar, as elsewhere, the horror scenario is one where Muslim extremists get seriously into the fight.’
The horror will be for the Saudi supported Bangladeshis. The Burmese are one of the most formidable martial races in the world.
Major powers behaving badly
Here’s a link to video of Bill Hayton at the National Interest for those who are interested
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-south-sea-claims-were-always-about-emotion-not-16941
All the best to all,
James
Major powers behaving badly
If you have not already done so, I suggest you look at Bill Hayton’s book, The South China Sea. He’s also just appeared in a video on the National Interest website.
Tolerance in the time of terror
Nich
“Hansonites !” A dead give away on your sentiment .
As for religious extremist what one see in Myanmar have been sectarian violence.
Respectfully, please keep them that way, especially looking at Myanmar Hx
You need to see a true religious extremist acts besides strapping bomb and blew up among the crowd, as in accounts of Hindu against Muslim or vis versa going at each other in the former British Raj.
Comparatively Buddhist extremist, an oxymoron, do not even register in any extremist scale.
The good new is the Buddhists are more than tolerant to wards every religion, except when Buddha is desecrated.
Some how loss all tolerance for everything, go figure.
Major powers behaving badly
Perhaps President Tran Dai Quang will end up like Chris Patten being condemned as ‘a snake, prostitute for a thousand years, triple violator and tango dancer’.
Hanoi’s hopes rise with China’s dashed nine-dash line
China sees the South China Sea Arbitration as a proxy war. The declared victor is the Philippines. Behind the Philippines the cheer leaders are Vietnam, Malaysia, Korean and Japan. The USA is the ring leader. Taiwan surprisingly is on the side of Mainland China, for a change.
Major powers behaving badly
I do speak Putonghua (Mandarin) and I assure you President Xi Jinping is a Fascist and China has steadily worsened since the reform period of Zhao Ziyang, a far, far better leader, who was himself, “reformed”. China has always been this way. Nothing good, that is non-material, ever lasts.
Major powers behaving badly
Very much agree that China’s past humiliations do not give it a license to inflict similar unilateralism or hegemonic ambitions on SE Asian countries. I also think however, it makes no sense to ignore the history behind China’s actions, including the “collective trauma” that has resulted from its colonial era experiences, whether manufactured, genuine or some combination of the two. It also makes no sense to pretend that international law has always been level playing field.
Major powers behaving badly
Thank you for your response.
I don’t see China’s reaction to the ruling as any particular threat to ‘progress on global governance’. I should acknowledge that, of the three main North Asian countries, China is the one that I know least well: I have only been there once and I don’t speak Chinese.
Consequently, I have no feel for how far China will press its claims in the South China Sea. Unlike some other observers, I admit that I see the South China Sea largely as a question of the need to create a balance between China and Southeast Asia in the region, rather than in terms of the issue’s broader international implications.
It seems to me outrageous (‘egregious’, in your admirable vocabulary) that China should seek to sweep up all the tiny dots on the map that lie in the waters of the South China Sea and exploit whatever resources that exercise affords it. No Southeast Asian country imposed an ‘Open Door’ on China nor established settlements within China where extraterritorial legal rights prevailed. There are no grounds for China’s attempt to humiliate Southeast Asian countries, simply because the imperialist West once humiliated China.
I harbour the suspicion that, unless Indonesia defends its Natuna EEZ effectively, China may one day disinter some Ming dynasty document showing that China once had sovereign rights in the Natunas.
Major powers behaving badly
Ken — by departure the author means withdrawal from the League of Nations project. But to make this crystal clear the text has been changed to reflect that.
All the best to all,
James
Major powers behaving badly
There is, of course, a precedent of “non-participation and non-acceptance” of a ruling by a third party to settle an international dispute. In the Nicaragua case of the 1980s, the then Ronald Regan-led US administration took a “non-participation and non-acceptance” stance when the International Court of Justice accepted the case; it eventually passed a ruling that went against the US.
Subsequently, although Nicaragua submitted the case twice to the United Nations Security Council for discussion, the US used its veto as a permanent Security Council member to foil its passage. Noticeably, the Security Council’s members such as Britain and France and Thailand, too, refused to support Nicaragua’s demand for the implementation of the ICJ ruling, by abstaining from voting on the discussion under various pretexts. By abstaining from voting, these countries indicated they, as Security Council members, chose to take into consideration extensive political factors, though they could support the ICJ verdict.
The Nicaragua case testifies that not all rulings of international courts are recognized or implemented by one or the other party. A comparison of the cases whose rulings were implemented and those whose rulings were not recognized shows the factors that would decide whether the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in the Philippines’ case is recognized and implemented include whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the case and whether it passes a flawless ruling. Different from the South China Sea arbitration case－in which the ruling is likely to stop short of having enough and binding content for implementation－the ICJ verdict in the Nicaragua case explicitly said the US should stop violating international law and compensate the losses it has caused to Nicaragua. So if the US, which has ignored the ICJ verdict, pressures China to implement the arbitral tribunal’s ruling, it will be guilty of using double standard.