Tuyên bố của Thủ Tướng Trần Văn Hữu tại Peace Treaty in San Francisco năm 1951

Source:  https://dongsongcu.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/tuyen-bo-cua-thu-tuong-tran-van-huu-tai-hoa-hoi-cuu-kim-son-nam-1951/

Posted on February 7, 2017 by dongsongcu

Như đã trình bày, đầu tháng 9 năm 1951, 51 quốc gia đã từng góp công trong cuộc chiến đấu chống Nhật Bản trong Đệ nhị thế chiến tới tham dự Hòa hội San Francisco theo lời mời của chính phủ Hoa Kỳ, để thảo luận vấn đề chấm dứt chiến tranh và mở bang giao với Nhật Bản. Trong hòa hội, vấn đề chính là thảo luận bản dự thảo hòa ước do Anh Mỹ đề nghị ngày 12-7-1951. Ngày 8-9-1951, các quốc gia tham dự hội nghị, ngoại trừ Nga và một số nước đàn em, đã ký một hòa ước với Nhật Bản. Điểm đáng chú ý là cả hai phe Quốc Cộng Trung Hoa đều không được mời tham dự hòa hội.

Tại hòa hội, Thủ tướng Chính phủ Quốc gia Việt Nam Trần Văn Hữu đã đọc bản tuyên bố xác định chủ quyền đã có từ lâu đời của Quốc gia Việt Nam trên quần đảo Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa. Sau đây là nội dung một số điểm chính đã được Thủ tướng Trần Văn Hữu trình bày tại Hòa hội Cựu Kim Sơn, trích trong France-Asia, số 66-67, tháng 11-12 1951, phần phiên dịch từ bản tiếng Pháp được phổ biến trong Tập san Sử Địa của Đại học Sư phạm Sài Gòn, số đặc khảo về Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa của ấn hành năm 1974.

*Tuyên bố của Thủ tướng Chính phủ Quốc gia Việt Nam Trần Văn Hữu tại Hòa hội Cựu Kim Sơn.

“Thật là nghiêm trọng và cảm kích cho Việt Nam được đến San Francisco tham dự công việc của hội nghị Hòa bình với Nhật Bản. Sở dĩ chúng tôi được hiện diện tại đây là nhờ các tử sĩ của chúng tôi và lòng hy sinh vô bờ bến của dân tộc chúng tôi, dân tộc đã chịu đựng biết bao đau khổ để được sống còn và giành sự trường tồn cho một nòi giống đã có hơn 4 ngàn năm lịch sử.”

“Nếu mỗi dân tộc đã thống khổ do sự chiếm đóng của Nhật Bản, có quyền tham dự hội nghị này, như tất cả diễn giả liên tiếp hai ngày nay đã đồng thanh nhìn nhận, mặc dù thuộc ý thức hệ nào đi nữa cũng vậy, thì cái quyền Việt Nam lên tiếng về Hòa ước Hòa bình với Nhật Bản lại càng dĩ nhiên hơn lúc nào hết, vì không ai không biết rằng, trong tất cả các quốc gia Á châu, V.N là một nước chịu nhiều đau khổ nhất về tài sản cũng như về tính mạng người dân. Và tôi thiếu sót phận sự tối thiểu đối với đồng bào quá vãng nếu giờ phút này, tôi không hướng một ý nghĩ thành kính đến số một triệu dân Việt mà hoàn cảnh bi thảm của sự chiếm đóng đã đưa đến cái chết đau thương. Những hư hại vật chất mà đất nước chúng tôi gánh chịu không phải là ít và tất cả nền kinh tế của chúng tôi bị ảnh hưởng một cách trầm trọng. Cầu cống và đường sá bị cắt đứt, làng xã bị triệt hạ hoàn toàn, nhà thương và trường học bị thiệt hại, bến tàu và đường sá bị dội bom, tất cả đều phải làm lại, đều cần thiết phải làm lại, nhưng than ôi cần có nguồn tài nguyên quá cao so với khả năng hiện hữu của chúng tôi.”

“Cho nên, trong lúc khen ngợi sự rộng lượng của những tác giả dự án thỏa hiệp này, chúng tôi cũng trình bày ngay đây những quan điểm mà chúng tôi yêu cầu hội nghị ghi nhận.”

“Là những người Á châu, chúng tôi thành thật hân hoan trước những viễn tượng mới mẻ mở rộng ra cho một quốc gia Á Đông sau khi kết thúc thỏa hiệp hòa bình này. Chúng tôi sẽ hết sức cố gắng góp phần vào sự phục hưng của một dân tộc Á đông bình dị và cần mẫn như nước Nhật Bản đây, chúng tôi tin chắc rằng những người dân châu Á phải là những người phát khởi thịnh vượng chung của mình, họ cũng trông cậy nơi chính mình để xa lánh mọi chế độ đế quốc và trong việc thiết lập một trạng thái quốc tế mới, một sự liên đới Á châu cũng cần thiết như một sự liên đới Âu châu vậy.”

“Điều này không có ý muốn nói là sẽ có một ngày nào đó hai sự đoàn kết này sẽ chống đối lẫn nhau. Điều này chỉ muốn nói một cách giản dị là các dân tộc châu Á một khi đã được các quốc gia Tây phương hoàn thành việc giúp đỡ họ xây dựng hòa bình, tôi nói rằng một khi mà hòa bình đã vãn hồi, các dân tộc Á châu không thể sẽ là gánh nặng cho kẻ khác, mà trái lại họ phải nhớ nằm lòng là họ phải tự bảo vệ mạng sống của họ bằng những phương tiện riêng của họ. Điều đó, ít nhất cũng là tham vọng của Việt Nam và dù cho có phải chịu nhiều thăng trầm cực nhọc họ vẫn tự hào là không lúc nào để nhụt chí. Nhưng một dân tộc độc lập phải là một dân tộc tự hào và cũng bởi sự tự hào, theo chúng tôi, có cái giá, giá đó tuy không thể nào bằng sự tự hào của Nhật Bản nhưng chúng tôi tới đây để yêu cầu được chữ ký của 51 quốc gia hội viên của Hội nghị này mà tái lập lại một đời sống quốc gia xứng đáng và tự hào.”

“Tuy nhiên nếu dự thảo hiệp ước này đòi hỏi thẳng thắn cái quyền dền bồi lại tất cả những thiệt hại mà chính Nhật Bản hoặc là tác giả, hoặc ngẫu nhiên đã gây ra, những đền bù được dự liệu bằng các cung cấp dịch vụ, trong trường hợp của Việt Nam mà không được đền bồi bằng những nguyên liệu, thì chắc chắn sẽ chẳng có kết quả gì cả. Tất cả mọi thứ Việt Nam, cũng cần như Nhật Bản, một số trợ giúp quan trọng để tái tạo nền kinh tế của mình. Từ đó, nếu nhận những đền bù chánh yếu bằng những cung cấp dịch vụ thì chẳng khác nào như là đi tín nhiệm mọi thứ tiền không thể lưu hành ở xứ mình.”

“Chúng tôi vì vậy sẽ phải đòi hỏi nghiên cứu lại các phương thức bồi hoàn hữu hiệu hơn và nhất là chúng tôi phải tính, ngoại trừ những phương tiện tạm thời, tới một sự bồi thường chính thức vào cái ngày mà chúng tôi ước mong là sẽ rất gần, cái ngày mà nền kinh tế của Nhật Bản sẽ được phục hưng để họ có thể đương đầu với tất cả mọi bắt buộc.”

Đoạn kết, Thủ tướng Trần Văn Hữu tuyên bố: “Việt Nam rất là hứng khởi ký nhận trước nhất cho công cuộc tạo dựng hòa bình này. Và xcũng vì vậy cần phải thành thật lợi dụng tất cả mọi cơ hội để dập tắt những mầm móng các tranh chấp sau này, chúng tôi xác nhận chủ quyền đã có từ lâu đời của chúng tôi trên quần đảo Trường Sa và Hoàng Sa”

* Lược ghi các phản ứng của Trung Cộng

.Về phía Trung Cộng, như đã trình bày, khi thấy bị Hoa Kỳ gạt ra khỏi hòa hội, các nhà lãnh đạo Bắc Kinh đã phản ứng ngay bằng cách một mặt ra một số bản tuyên bố chính thức và một mặt khác cho đăng các bài báo để lên án Hoa Kỳ về việc không mời Trung Cộng tham dự hòa hội và để trình bầy quan điểm của Trung Cộng về một số vấn đề cần phải được thảo luận. Một trong những vấn đề này là chủ quyền trên hai quần đảo Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa. Lời tuyên bố đầu tiên của chính phủ Trung Cộng đã được Chu Ân Lai, lúc đó là bộ trưởng Ngoại giao, trình bày ngày 4-12-1950, trong đó Trung Cộng đã nêu ra căn bản chính để ký một hòa ước với Nhật Bản: “Bản Tuyên cáo Cairo, Thỏa ước Yalta, bản tuyên bố Potsdam và các chính sách căn bản đối với Nhật Bản sau khi nước này đầu hàng đã được các quốc gia trong Ủy Hội Viễn Đông thỏa thuận và thông qua ngày 19-6-1047, các văn kiện quốc tế mà Chính phủ Hoa Kỳ đã ký kết là căn bản chính cho một hòa ước với Nhật Bản”. Chu Ân Lai nói thêm: Nhân dân Trung Hoa rất ước muốn sớm có một hòa ước liên hợp với Nhật Bản cùng với các quốc gia khác trong thời kỳ Thế Chiến Thứ Hai. Nhưng căn bản của hòa ước phải hoàn toàn thích hợp với bản tuyên cáo Cairo, Thỏa ước Yalta, bản Tuyên cáo Potsdam và các chính sách căn bản đối với Nhật Bản sau khi nước này đầu hàng được quy định trong các văn kiện này. Tuy bản tuyên bố của Chu Ân Lai không đề cập đến vấn đề chủ quyền với hai quần đảo mà chỉ đề cập tới nhiều vấn đề khác, nhưng nó đã nêu ra quan điểm chính yếu của Trung Cộng.

Trong số báo tuần trước, VB đã lược trình nội dung “vấn đề chủ quyền trên hai quần đảo” mà Trung Cộng chính thức đề cập trong một bản tuyên bố sau đó. Để bạn đọc tiện theo dõi, chúng tôi xin tóm lược các điểm chính đã trình bày: Khi nghiên cứu dự thảo hòa ước Cựu Kim Sơn Anh-Mỹ do Hoa Kỳ gửi cho các quốc gia được mời tham dự hòa hội, chính phủ Trung Cộng thấy điều hai của dự thảo hòa ước không quy định hai quần đảo Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa mà Nhật Bản sẽ phải từ bỏ được trao cho quốc gia nào, nên trong bản tuyên bố ngày 15-8-1951, sau khi đề cập tới quan điểm của Trung Cộng về từng vấn đề một, Chu Ân Lai tuyên bố: “Dự thảo Hiệp ước quy định là Nhật Bản sẽ từ bỏ mọi quyền đối với đảo Nam Uy (đảo Spratly) và quần đảo Tây sa (quần đảo Paracel), nhưng lại cố ý không đề cập tới vấn đề tái lập chủ quyền trên hai quần đảo này. Thực ra, cũng như các quần đảo Nam Sa và quần đảo Đông Sa, quần đảo Tây sa và quần đảo Nam Uy lúc nào cũng là lãnh thổ của Trung Quốc. Mặc dù những đảo này đã có lúc bị Nhật Bản chiếm đóng một thời gian trong trận chiến tranh xâm lăng do đế quốc Nhật Bản gây ra, sau khi Nhật Bản đầu hàng thì chính phủ Trung Hoa đã thâu hồi những hòn đảo này.”

Chu Ân Lai kết luận vấn đề này bằng cách phủ nhận giá trị bất cứ hòa ước nào ký kết với Nhật Bản mà không có sự tham dự của Trung Cộng: Chính phủ Nhân dân Trung ương của nước Cộng Hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa một lần nữa tuyên bố: Nếu không có sự tham dự của Cộng Hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa trong việc chuẩn bị, soạn thảo và ký một hòa ước với Nhật Bản thì dù nội dung và kết quả một hiệp ước như vậy có như thế nào, chính phủ Nhân dân Trung ương cũng coi hòa ước ấy hoàn toàn bất hợp pháp, và vì vậy vô hiệu.”

https://vietbao.com/a86176/tai-lieu-bien-gioi-lanh-hai-vn-tuyen-bo-cua-thu-tuong-tran-van-huu-o-hoa-hoi-1951

Hồ Sơ Thềm Lục Ðịa Việt Nam và Bản Ðồ VNCH được VAC-NORCAL gởi đến LHQ 13/5/2009

Hồ Sơ Thềm Lục Ðịa Việt Nam và Bản Ðồ VNCH được VAC-NORCAL gởi đến LHQ 13/5/2009

The Contents Page
http://saigonfilms.com/rvn_350shelf/tableofcontents_list050309.pdf

http://www.saigonfilms.com/eastsea/rvn_350shelf/executive041709_secured.pdf

Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China's missile supremacy. China says it 'expelled' U.S. Navy vessel from South China Sea

World

Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China's missile supremacy

David Lague

May 6, 2020, 2:31 AM PDT

1 / 15

https://www.yahoo.com/news/special-report-u-rearms-nullify-093102073.html

FILE PHOTO: With the USS-Wasp in the background, U.S. Marines ride an amphibious assault vehicle during the amphibious landing exercises of the U.S.-Philippines war games promoting bilateral ties at a military camp in Zambales province

By David Lague
HONG KONG (Reuters) - As Washington and Beijing trade barbs over the coronavirus pandemic, a longer-term struggle between the two Pacific powers is at a turning point, as the United States rolls out new weapons and strategy in a bid to close a wide missile gap with China.
The United States has largely stood by in recent decades as China dramatically expanded its military firepower. Now, having shed the constraints of a Cold War-era arms control treaty, the Trump administration is planning to deploy long-range, ground-launched cruise missiles in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Pentagon intends to arm its Marines with versions of the Tomahawk cruise missile now carried on U.S. warships, according to the White House budget requests for 2021 and Congressional testimony in March of senior U.S. military commanders. It is also accelerating deliveries of its first new long-range anti-ship missiles in decades.
In a statement to Reuters about the latest U.S. moves, Beijing urged Washington to "be cautious in word and deed," to "stop moving chess pieces around" the region, and to "stop flexing its military muscles around China."
The U.S. moves are aimed at countering China's overwhelming advantage in land-based cruise and ballistic missiles. The Pentagon also intends to dial back China's lead in what strategists refer to as the "range war." The People's Liberation Army (PLA), China's military, has built up a huge force of missiles that mostly outrange those of the U.S. and its regional allies, according to senior U.S. commanders and strategic advisers to the Pentagon, who have been warning that China holds a clear advantage in these weapons.
And, in a radical shift in tactics, the Marines will join forces with the U.S. Navy in attacking an enemy's warships. Small and mobile units of U.S. Marines armed with anti-ship missiles will become ship killers.
In a conflict, these units will be dispersed at key points in the Western Pacific and along the so-called first island chain, commanders said. The first island chain is the string of islands that run from the Japanese archipelago, through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas.
Top U.S. military commanders explained the new tactics to Congress in March in a series of budget hearings. The commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, General David Berger, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5 that small units of Marines armed with precision missiles could assist the U.S. Navy to gain control of the seas, particularly in the Western Pacific. "The Tomahawk missile is one of the tools that is going to allow us to do that," he said.
The Tomahawk - which first gained fame when launched in massed strikes during the 1991 Gulf War - has been carried on U.S. warships and used to attack land targets in recent decades. The Marines would test fire the cruise missile through 2022 with the aim of making it operational the following year, top Pentagon commanders testified.
At first, a relatively small number of land-based cruise missiles will not change the balance of power. But such a shift would send a strong political signal that Washington is preparing to compete with China's massive arsenal, according to senior U.S. and other Western strategists. Longer term, bigger numbers of these weapons combined with similar Japanese and Taiwanese missiles would pose a serious threat to Chinese forces, they say. The biggest immediate threat to the PLA comes from new, long-range anti-ship missiles now entering service with U.S. Navy and Air Force strike aircraft.
"The Americans are coming back strongly," said Ross Babbage, a former senior Australian government defense official and now a non-resident fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a security research group. "By 2024 or 2025 there is a serious risk for the PLA that their military developments will be obsolete."
A Chinese military spokesman, Senior Colonel Wu Qian, warned last October that Beijing would "not stand by" if Washington deployed land-based, long-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region.
China's foreign ministry accused the United States of sticking "to its cold war mentality" and "constantly increasing military deployment" in the region.
"Recently, the United States has gotten worse, stepping up its pursuit of a so-called 'Indo-Pacific strategy' that seeks to deploy new weapons, including ground-launched intermediate-range missiles, in the Asia-Pacific region," the ministry said in a statement to Reuters. "China firmly opposes that."
Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Dave Eastburn said he would not comment on statements by the Chinese government or the PLA.
U.S. MILITARY UNSHACKLED
While the coronavirus pandemic rages, Beijing has increased its military pressure on Taiwan and exercises in the South China Sea. In a show of strength, on April 11 the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning led a flotilla of five other warships into the Western Pacific through the Miyako Strait to the northeast of Taiwan, according to Taiwan's Defense Ministry. On April 12, the Chinese warships exercised in waters east and south of Taiwan, the ministry said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy was forced to tie up the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt at Guam while it battles to contain a coronavirus outbreak among the crew of the giant warship. However, the U.S. Navy managed to maintain a powerful presence off the Chinese coast. The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry passed through the Taiwan Strait twice in April. And the amphibious assault ship USS America last month exercised in the East China Sea and South China Sea, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said.
In a series last year, Reuters reported that while the U.S. was distracted by almost two decades of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the PLA had built a missile force designed to attack the aircraft carriers, other surface warships and network of bases that form the backbone of American power in Asia. Over that period, Chinese shipyards built the world's biggest navy, which is now capable of dominating the country's coastal waters and keeping U.S. forces at bay.
The series also revealed that in most categories, China's missiles now rival or outperform counterparts in the armories of the U.S. alliance.
To read the series, click https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/china-army
China derived an advantage because it was not party to a Cold War-era treaty - the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) - that banned the United States and Russia from possessing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges from 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers. Unrestrained by the INF pact, China has deployed about 2,000 of these weapons, according to U.S. and other Western estimates.
While building up its missile forces on land, the PLA also fitted powerful, long-range anti-ship missiles to its warships and strike aircraft.
This accumulated firepower has shifted the regional balance of power in China's favor. The United States, long the dominant military power in Asia, can no longer be confident of victory in a military clash in waters off the Chinese coast, according to senior retired U.S. military officers.
But the decision by President Donald Trump last year to exit the INF treaty has given American military planners new leeway. Almost immediately after withdrawing from the pact on August 2, the administration signaled it would respond to China's missile force. The next day, U.S. Secretary for Defense Mark Esper said he would like to see ground-based missiles deployed in Asia within months, but he acknowledged it would take longer.
Later that month, the Pentagon tested a ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missile. In December, it tested a ground-launched ballistic missile. The INF treaty banned such ground-launched weapons, and thus both tests would have been forbidden.
A senior Marines commander, Lieutenant General Eric Smith, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 11 that the Pentagon leadership had instructed the Marines to field a ground-launched cruise missile "very quickly."
The budget documents show that the Marines have requested $125 million to buy 48 Tomahawk missiles from next year. The Tomahawk has a range of 1,600km, according to its manufacturer, Raytheon Company.
Smith said the cruise missile may not ultimately prove to be the most suitable weapon for the Marines. "It may be a little too heavy for us," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, but experience gained from the tests could be transferred to the army.
Smith also said the Marines had successfully tested a new shorter-range anti-ship weapon, the Naval Strike Missile, from a ground launcher and would conduct another test in June. He said if that test was successful, the Marines intended to order 36 of these missiles in 2022. The U.S. Army is also testing a new long-range, land-based missile that can target warships. This missile would have been prohibited under the INF treaty.
The Marine Corps said in a statement it was evaluating the Naval Strike Missile to target ships and the Tomahawk for attacking targets on land. Eventually, the Marines aimed to field a system "that could engage long-range moving targets either on land or sea," the statement said.
The Defense Department also has research underway on new, long-range strike weapons, with a budget request of $3.2 billion for hypersonic technology, mostly for missiles.
China's foreign ministry drew a distinction between the PLA's arsenal of missiles and the planned U.S. deployment. It said China's missiles were "located in its territory, especially short and medium-range missiles, which cannot reach the mainland of the United States. This is fundamentally different from the U.S., which is vigorously pushing forward deployment."
BOTTLING UP CHINA'S NAVY
Military strategists James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara suggested almost a decade ago that the first island chain was a natural barrier that could be exploited by the American military to counter the Chinese naval build-up. Ground-based anti-ship missiles could command key passages through the island chain into the Western Pacific as part of a strategy to keep the rapidly expanding Chinese navy bottled up, they suggested.
In embracing this strategy, Washington is attempting to turn Chinese tactics back on the PLA. Senior U.S. commanders have warned that China's land-based cruise and ballistic missiles would make it difficult for U.S. and allied navies to operate near China's coastal waters.
But deploying ground-based U.S. and allied missiles in the island chain would pose a similar threat to Chinese warships - to vessels operating in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea, or ships attempting to break out into the Western Pacific. Japan and Taiwan have already deployed ground-based anti-ship missiles for this purpose.
"We need to be able to plug up the straits," said Holmes, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. "We can, in effect, ask them if they want Taiwan or the Senkakus badly enough to see their economy and armed forces cut off from the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. In all likelihood the answer will be no."
Holmes was referring to the uninhabited group of isles in the East China Sea - known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China - that are claimed by both Tokyo and Beijing.
The United States faces challenges in plugging the first island chain. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte's decision to distance himself from the United States and forge closer ties with China is a potential obstacle to American plans. U.S. forces could face barriers to operating from strategically important islands in the Philippines archipelago after Duterte in February scrapped a key security agreement with Washington.
And if U.S. forces do deploy in the first island chain with anti-ship missiles, some U.S. strategists believe this won't be decisive, as the Marines would be vulnerable to strikes from the Chinese military.
The United States has other counterweights. The firepower of long-range U.S. Air Force bombers could pose a bigger threat to Chinese forces than the Marines, the strategists said. Particularly effective, they said, could be the stealthy B-21 bomber, which is due to enter service in the middle of this decade, armed with long-range missiles.
The Pentagon is already moving to boost the firepower of its existing strike aircraft in Asia. U.S. Navy Super Hornet jets and Air Force B-1 bombers are now being armed with early deliveries of Lockheed Martin's new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, according to the budget request documents. The new missile is being deployed in response to an "urgent operational need" for the U.S. Pacific Command, the documents explain.
The new missile carries a 450 kilogram warhead and is capable of "semi-autonomous" targeting, giving it some ability to steer itself, according to the budget request. Details of the stealthy cruise missile's range are classified. But U.S. and other Western military officials estimate it can strike targets at distances greater than 800 kilometers.
The budget documents show the Pentagon is seeking $224 million to order another 53 of these missiles in 2021. The U.S. Navy and Air Force expect to have more than 400 of them in service by 2025, according to orders projected in the documents.
This new anti-ship missile is derived from an existing Lockheed long-range, land attack weapon, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. The Pentagon is asking for $577 million next year to order another 400 of these land-attack missiles.
"The U.S. and allied focus on long-range land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles was the quickest way to rebuild long-range conventional firepower in the Western Pacific region," said Robert Haddick, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and now a visiting senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies based in Arlington, Virginia.
For the U.S. Navy in Asia, Super Hornet jets operating from aircraft carriers and armed with the new anti-ship missile would deliver a major boost in firepower while allowing the expensive warships to operate further away from potential threats, U.S. and other Western military officials say.
Current and retired U.S. Navy officers have been urging the Pentagon to equip American warships with longer-range anti-ship missiles that would allow them to compete with the latest, heavily armed Chinese cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Lockheed has said it successfully test-fired one of the new Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles from the type of launcher used on U.S. and allied warships.
Haddick, one of the first to draw attention to China's firepower advantage in his 2014 book, "Fire on the Water," said the threat from Chinese missiles had galvanized the Pentagon with new strategic thinking and budgets now directed at preparing for high-technology conflict with powerful nations like China.
Haddick said the new missiles were critical to the defensive plans of America and its allies in the Western Pacific. The gap won't close immediately, but firepower would gradually improve, Haddick said. "This is especially true during the next half-decade and more, as successor hypersonic and other classified munition designs complete their long periods of development, testing, production, and deployment," he said.
(Additional reporting by the Beijing newsroom. Edited by Peter Hirschberg.)

 World

China says it 'expelled' U.S. Navy vessel from South China Sea

Adela Suliman and Eric Baculinao and Leou Chen and Ed Flanagan

NBC News April 30, 2020, 5:25 AM PDT

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-says-expelled-u-navy-122550069.html

China's military has said it "expelled" a U.S. navy vessel from the hotly contested waters of the South China Sea this week. It said the "USS Barry" had illegally entered China's Xisha territorial waters on Tuesday.
China's Southern Theater army command "organized sea and air forces to track, monitor, verify, and identify the U.S. ships throughout the journey, and warned and expelled them," said Chinese military spokesperson Li Huamin, in a statement.
"The provocative actions of the United States seriously violated relevant international law norms, seriously violated China's sovereignty and security interests, artificially increased regional security risks, and were prone to cause unexpected incidents," he said.
NBC News reached out to American officials who were not immediately available for comment overnight.
The South China Sea is a potentially energy-rich stretch of water and home to more than 200 specks of land. It serves as a gateway to global sea routes where approximately $3.4 trillion of trade passes annually.
The numerous overlapping sovereign claims to islands, reefs and rocks — many of which disappear under high tide — have turned the waters into a zone of competing diplomatic interests, embroiling neighbors. Beijing holds the lion's share of these features with approximately 27 outposts peppered throughout.
Tension has been simmering in the South China Sea, of late, particularly between China and its Asian seafaring neighbors Malaysia and the Philippines.
This month Vietnam also lodged an official protest with China, following the sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat it said had been rammed by a Chinese maritime surveillance vessel near the Paracel Islands, in the South China Sea. China denied the claims and said the Vietnamese boat had illegally entered the area to fish and refused to leave.
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told his Southeast Asian counterparts that China was taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the coronavirus pandemic to push its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.
"Beijing has moved to take advantage of the distraction, from China’s new unilateral announcement of administrative districts over disputed islands ... its sinking of a Vietnamese fishing vessel earlier this month, and its ‘research stations’ on Fiery Cross Reef and Subi Reef," Pompeo said in a video meeting with the foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on April 23.
Pompeo also accused China of deploying militarized ships to intimidate other claimant countries from developing offshore gas and oil projects in the region.
Last week, the U.S. Navy said it had partnered with the Australian navy for operations in the South China Sea, which began April 13.
"To bring this much combat capability together here in the South China Sea truly signals to our allies and partners in the region that we are deeply committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific," said Rear Adm. Fred Kacher, commander of the America Expeditionary Strike Group, in a statement.
The U.S. 7th Fleet is the U.S. Navy’s largest numbered fleet and routinely conducts operations in the Indo-Pacific area. It has said that all of its interactions during freedom of navigation movements have been in accordance with international norms.
The U.S. Navy has previously stated that sweeping maritime claims in the South China Sea posed a serious threat to freedom of the seas and the right of innocent passage of all ships.

Image: RRoyal Australian Navy helicopter frigate HMAS Parramatta (top right) conducts officer of the watch manoeuvres with amphibious assault ship USS America, guided-missile destroyer USS Barry and guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker (Australia Department Of Defence / Reuters)

China has maintained that it has historical sovereign rights in the South China Sea, which neighboring countries have disputed. In this latest interaction, China said the U.S. was not acting "in line" with the wishes of other countries in the region, which want to "maintain peace and stability in that area."
Spokesperson Li also urged the U.S. to instead focus on its national COVID-19 crisis.
"We urge the United States to focus on the prevention and control of its national epidemic situation, do more useful things for international anti-epidemic efforts, and immediately stop military operations that are not conducive to regional security, peace and stability," he said.
The coronavirus pandemic has been a growing source of tension between the world's two largest economies, with both Washington D.C. and Beijing heaping criticism on each others' handling of the outbreak.
Li added that Chinese forces would continue to "resolutely perform their duties" in the South China Sea to "firmly maintain peace and stability."
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

World

Australia asks China to explain 'economic coercion' threat in coronavirus row

By Kirsty Needham

Reuters April 28, 2020, 1:48 AM PDT

 Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/australia-china-tensions-rise-over-084817583.html

By Kirsty Needham
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia has asked the Chinese ambassador to explain his "threats of economic coercion" in response to Canberra's push for an international inquiry into the source and spread of the coronavirus.
Australia's call for a probe into the pandemic, which originated in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in December, has angered China, its largest trading partner, following a couple of years of diplomatic tension.
Cheng Jingye, Beijing's ambassador to Australia, told a newspaper on Monday that Chinese consumers could boycott Australian beef, wine, tourism and universities in response.
Australian Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said Australia was a "crucial supplier" to China and that Australia's resources and energy helped power much of China's manufacturing growth and construction.
He said Cheng had been called by the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to explain his comments.
"Australia is no more going to change our policy position on major public health issues because of economic coercion, or threats of economic coercion, than we would change our policy position in matters of national security," Birmingham said on ABC radio.
The Chinese embassy published a summary of the conversation on its website, which said Cheng had "flatly rejected the concern expressed from the Australian side".
Cheng also said "the fact cannot be buried that the proposal is a political manoeuvre," according to the statement, which added that Australia was "crying up wine and selling vinegar" when it said the proposed review would not target China.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang denied the ambassador’s comments amounted to "economic coercion".
“The Chinese ambassador to Australia is talking about the concerns of the Chinese people, who ... disapprove of certain wrong actions by Australia lately,” Geng told reporters in Beijing.
Birmingham told Sky News the Australian "government's displeasure was made known" in the phone call.
China accounts for 26% of Australia's total trade, worth around A$235 billion ($150 billion) in 2018/19, and is the biggest single market for Australian exports such as coal, iron ore, wine, beef, tourism and education.
Birmingham said Australia wanted to maintain a positive relationship with China, but would also seek other opportunities in places such as India and the European Union. Trade with the European Union was worth A$114.3 billion and India A$30.3 billion in 2018/19.
Even amid escalating diplomatic tensions in 2018/19, when Australia introduced foreign interference laws perceived to be aimed at China, two-way trade with China grew by 20%.
"China needs us. Let's not forget that. Many of the critical imports to Chinese industry, like iron ore, coal, and gas come from Australia," James Paterson, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, told Sky News.

(Reporting by Kirsty Needham, additional reporting by Cate Cadell in Beijing; editing by Jane Wardell and Nick Macfie)

 Politics

Trump says U.S. is investigating China over virus

Reuters Videos April 28, 2020, 1:15 AM PDT

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-u-investigating-china-081456392.html

On Monday (April 27) U.S. President Donald Trump blamed China again for the spread of the coronavirus and said his administration will seek damages for the United States.
(SOUNDBITE) (English) U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, SAYING:
"There are a lot of ways you can hold them accountable. We're doing very serious investigations, as you probably know, and we are not happy with China. We are not happy with that whole situation because we believe it could have been stopped at the source, it could have been stopped quickly and it wouldn't have spread all over the world. And we think that should have happened."
Trump has repeatedly targeted China's handling of the virus outbreak, which first appeared in the city of Wuhan late last year.
That includes at one time, floating the theory that the virus may have originated in a Wuhan lab.
China denied those accusations and the World Health Organization later rejected the theory.
And last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. quote "strongly believed" Beijing failed to report the outbreak in a timely manner.
(SOUNDBITE) (English) U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO, SAYING:
"Even after the CCP did notify the WHO of the coronavirus outbreak, China didn't share all of the information it had. Instead it covered up how dangerous the disease is. It didn't report sustained human to human transmission for a month until it was in every province inside of China."
On Monday Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying took aim at Pompeo tweeting that he should quote "stop playing the political game" and "save energy on saving lives."
Pompeo is not the only member of Trump's administration to criticize China in recent weeks.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro - has accused China of quote "profiteering" from the pandemic.
Earlier on Monday he took to Fox News to accuse Beijing of sending quote "fake tests" for the coronavirus despite the United States being heavily reliant on China for basic equipment.

Politics

Republican senators ask U.N. chief for independent WHO review panel

Reuters April 24, 2020, 8:45 AM PDT

 Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-senators-ask-u-n-154509833.html

 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jim Risch talks to the media after a meeting with Carlos Alfredo Vecchio

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republicans in the U.S. Senate on Friday asked the United Nations to conduct an independent review of the World Health Organization response to the coronavirus pandemic, saying the body appeared to have shown "remarkable deference" to China.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the senators - led by Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - said the panel should be set up immediately and "include an interim assessment of the WHO's performance to date" and recommendations for reforms.
Signatories included Senators Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Cory Gardner, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, John Barrasso, Rob Portman, Rand Paul, Todd Young, Ted Cruz and David Perdue.
While implicitly critical of the WHO, the senators' letter took a less confrontational line than President Donald Trump, who last week halted funding while Washington reviewed the WHO response. Trump accused the WHO of promoting China's "disinformation," saying it likely led to a wider outbreak.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this week the WHO's handling of the pandemic showed the need to overhaul WHO and warned that Washington may never restore WHO funding and could even work to set up an alternative to the U.N. body.
"The WHO appears to have shown remarkable deference to the Chinese government throughout this pandemic," the Republican senators wrote. "Restoring confidence in the WHO ... will require greater transparency, accountability, and reform."
When asked about the letter, a U.N. spokesman referred to an April 8 statement by Guterres when he said it will be essential to learn lessons from the coronavirus pandemic so similar challenges can be effectively addressed in the future.
"But now is not that time," Guterres said.
The new coronavirus first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan and has so far infected some 2.7 million globally and 191,470 people have died, according to a Reuters tally.
The Republican letter cited a 2015 interim assessment panel, which reviewed the WHO response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Those independent experts were appointed by the WHO director-general at the request of the WHO executive board: 34 members qualified in health and elected for three years.
While the Geneva-based WHO is part of the U.N. family, referred to as a U.N. specialized agency, it is an independent international organization with its own funding and decision-making body: the 194-member World Health Assembly.
Australia said on Thursday it would push for an international investigation into the coronavirus outbreak at next month's annual meeting of the assembly.
World leaders pledged on Friday to accelerate work on tests, drugs and vaccines against COVID-19, but the United States did not take part in the launch of the WHO initiative.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and David Brunnstrom; additional reporting by Michelle Nichols in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

The World Is Awaking to the Ugly Realities of the Chinese Regime

World

The World Is Awaking to the Ugly Realities of the Chinese Regime

Therese Shaheen

National Review April 30, 2020, 3:30 AM PDT

Source:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-awaking-ugly-realities-chinese-103041415.html

Earlier this month, a McDonald’s restaurant in Guangzhou, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong, was forced to remove a sign warning that “black people are not allowed to enter.” Upon removing it, McDonald’s told NBC News in a statement that the sign was “not representative of our inclusive values.”
That sounds like what it almost certainly is: a product of the company’s communications department, called in to do damage control. And while we can accept that the McDonald’s corporation itself is not, on the whole, racist, the sign does unfortunately represent China’s values.
As NR’s Jim Geraghty has noted, the incident is an example of the “xenophobia and racism” on display just now in China. This phenomenon is not new to the PRC, but the government has an extra incentive to lean into it now, because it helps the government’s concerted campaign to deflect blame for the global coronavirus pandemic.
There is ample evidence of this. A recent Reuters report noted that ambassadors from several African nations recently engaged the Chinese foreign ministry to raise concerns about how their citizens are being mistreated in China. Passport holders from African countries are subject to extreme stop-and-search practices. Many who are coronavirus-negative are being forced into 30-day quarantines anyway. Foreigners from a range of countries who can document clean bills of health are being denied entry to places of business and other facilities simply because they are foreigners.
Much of this is taking place in Guangzhou, known to some as “Little Africa” because it has the largest African-immigrant population in China. To some extent, African immigration to China is a by-product of Xi Jinping’s effort to build a global network of trade and infrastructure investment that gives the regime a perceived geopolitical advantage over the West in the developing world. Ghanaians, Nigerians, and other immigrants to China are all too happy to take advantage of the work and educational opportunities China offers. But many of them have learned the hard way just how limited the country’s kindness is.
In fact, China’s ill-treatment of foreign-minority populations reflects how the Chinese government treats its own citizens. Muslim minority Uighurs are being held in so-called re-education camps intended to strip them of their religious and ethnic identity, and in many cases subjected to forced labor. In Tibet, which China has oppressed since the very beginning of Communist rule in 1949, things have gotten worse under Xi: Last year, Freedom House named Tibet the second-least-free territory on Earth, behind only war-torn Syria.
It would be natural to presume that such discrimination is a regrettable result of the dominance of the Han Chinese, who are more than 90 percent of China’s population and dominate its society. (By comparison, ethnic Uighurs, for example, make up less than 1 percent of the population.)  The Han Chinese, with 1.3 billion members, are the largest ethnic group not just in the PRC but in the world. Antipathy, oppression, and discrimination toward minority ethnic groups in a country with such a dominant majority is regrettable but not surprising, and not unique to the PRC.
Beijing’s response to critics who note all of this is to try to drown them out by highlighting America’s own well-documented history of racial discrimination. But that’s the point: Our historical sins are well-documented, and they inform just about every aspect of our public policy. A free press and other institutions hold up our actions for the world to see. There is no mystery about how our country continues to deal with the effects of the institutionalized discrimination that persisted for nearly two centuries after our own founding, and for a century after we fought a war to end it.
That said, there is a quality to the pattern of behavior in the PRC that transcends ethnicity. Chinese racial discrimination is horrifying in its own right, of course. But it also suggests a farther-reaching chauvinism that is emerging as the defining characteristic of the Xi era.
Han Chinese make up the same percentage of the population in Hong Kong as on the mainland, and are 97 percent of the population in Taiwan. Neither Hong Kongers nor Taiwanese have suffered any less at Xi’s hands for that. Nor, for that matter, have the 400 million mostly Han Chinese living on less than $5 a day in the country outside China’s megacities, who face vicious discrimination from urban elites.
In some ways, the gulf between the rich in China’s cities and the poor in its rural areas has been institutionalized through the longstanding “hukou” system of internal registration, which hampers movement between regions and creates what amounts to an economic caste system. While Xi has made hukou reform a priority in order to create greater opportunity for urban migration and prosperity, the system continues to reinforce the divide between urban haves and rural have-nots. As the former become wealthier and more global in their perspective, the disdain they frequently show for those who are different — whether from Africa or rural China — is becoming more pronounced.
Xi-era chauvinism is beginning to create a backlash around the world. One example is the cooling ardor toward the Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s aforementioned effort to gain footholds in foreign markets. Many projects have caused host countries to take on excessive debt. In one instance, a strategic port in Sri Lanka was ceded to China when the debt burden became too high. Politicians in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and other countries have reversed earlier positions of support because of what they see as China’s discriminatory debt diplomacy.
This backlash is appearing even in European countries that once saw China as a potential counterbalance to the Trump administration. In Sweden, for instance, some cities have ended sister-city relationships with Chinese counterparts, and the country has closed its Confucius Institute schools, dealing a blow to one of Beijing’s other soft-power propaganda operations. European leaders, including NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenburg and French president Emmanuel Macron, have also called for better understanding of how Beijing handled the coronavirus pandemic and pushed back against China’s campaign to deflect blame for it.
In short, the world finally seems to be recovering from its decades-long love affair with the PRC, which peaked with the rise of Xi, who was initially viewed as a reformer who would bring China onto the world’s stage as an equal, responsible actor. The true nature of the regime is becoming more apparent, and the world doesn’t like what it sees: the dreadful treatment of ethnic minorities and the rural poor; the obvious interference in Taiwan’s recent presidential election; the belligerence toward Hong Kong as the “one country, two systems” agreement is systematically dismantled and pro-democracy leaders are arrested or just disappear; the bullying of emerging economies through debt diplomacy; and now what is very likely a global pandemic caused by Chinese negligence.
For the first time since the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre 30 years ago, the world has awakened to these ugly realities, and if anything good has emerged from this chaotic geopolitical era, that might be it. Here’s hoping that more aggressive action to counter Beijing comes next.

More from National Review

• Don’t Let the Chinese Government Escape Blame for Coronavirus’s Initial Spread
• The Chinese Wild-Animal Industry and Wet Markets Must Go
• China’s ‘New Long March’

  World

To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture

Lewis Libby

National Review April 29, 2020, 3:30 AM PDT

 Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/confront-china-coronavirus-must-see-103029830.html

(correct translated Vietnamese)

Họ cho phép không phải một, mà hàng ngàn người nhiễm bệnh rời khỏi Trung Quốc và bước vào một thế giới không nghi ngờ, một thế giới bị Bắc Kinh ru ngủ.

 

  NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE I n a popular movie two decades ago, hard-eyed criminals released into Sydney a woman infected with a virus, knowing that unsuspecting Australians would catch the highly contagious disease and, traveling on, unwittingly spread death across a hundred homelands. This past winter, the hard-eyed leaders of China did worse. They allowed not one, but thousands of infected to leave China and enter an unsuspecting world, a world lulled by Beijing. The crucial question is: Why?
“China caused an enormous amount of pain [and] loss of life . . . by not sharing the information they had,” Secretary of State Pompeo said on April 23. America is angry, he added, and while much remains to be known, China “will pay a price.”
No subpoenas, no oversight committees, no tell-all books will expose President Xi’s calculations as the novel coronavirus spread inside China. The unelected of Beijing guard well their secret debates. The CCP knows the virtues of opacity, of letting uncertainty, complacency, and wishful thinking paralyze the West. Exploiting these has been its way.
In 2018, a major Trump-administration speech called CCP misdeeds to task. Some, including, notably, Japan’s prime minister, applauded. But many nations looked toward their feet, too reluctant, too sophisticated, perhaps too intimidated to bestir. Staggering COVID-19 losses may yet remind the world of the dangers of drift as great powers go astray.
Today’s American, European, Japanese, and Asian policymakers, like those of centuries past, bear the burdens of judgment. Uncertainty has ever been the statesman’s curse. America’s famed diplomat, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, has written, “Nations learn only by experience, they ‘know’ only when it is too late to act. But statesmen must act as if their intuition were already experience. . . .”
A reassessment of Xi and the CCP looms. From their actions and practices, from assessments of their motives and apparent long-term aims, today’s statesmen, like their forebears, must judge future risks and craft the surest course ahead. These are early days, but the picture of Beijing presented so far is troubling.
Even before the virus spread in Wuhan, Xi brooded over a worrying hand. The CCP could not intimidate prolonged protests on the streets of freedom-loving Hong Kong. And the Party’s oppression there, in determined violation of treaty commitments, spurred voters in Taiwan to rebuff Beijing’s hopes for a more amenable regime in Taipei. The world was finally awakening to Xi’s increasingly autocratic surveillance state, his harsh repression of Uighur Muslims, and his predatory Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s economy, essential to Xi’s hold on power, had stumbled, in part because of the Trump administration’s move to counter China’s unfair, neo-mercantilist practices and to condemn their grim geopolitical implications. Worse yet, America’s markets hummed, raising reelection hopes within the Trump administration, which had also surpassed modern predecessors in challenging China. Rumors of Party dissatisfaction with Xi seeped out.
COVID-19’s outbreak in Wuhan further darkened Xi’s prospects. As long as the virus raged primarily inside China — derailing only her economy, stigmatizing only her government — his troubles would soar. All the while, the world predictably would have leapt ahead, taking Chinese customers, stealing China’s long-sought glory.
The disease’s spread to Berlin and Paris, New York and Tokyo, improved Xi’s prospects, at least in the near term. Pandemic diverted foreign eyes from Hong Kong’s and the Uighurs’ plight. Desperate needs rendered disease-weakened nations more susceptible to China’s goods and BRI’s short-term appeal. Asian states, wary of Beijing, had new cause to doubt the commitment of a pandemic-preoccupied Washington, while a weakened economy and vastly increased debts would likely constrain future U.S. defense spending, essential to Asian security. An unpredictable element had entered into America’s 2020 election.
As events unfolded, might Xi have recognized that COVID-19’s leap into the wider world promised such political and geopolitical gains? Some say a desire to protect itself first fed a CCP cover-up, as if putting this before the health of innocents were not bad enough. But were CCP leaders blind, as days passed, to other benefits? It is the Chinese way, the noted French Sinologist François Jullien has written, to exploit the potential inherent in unfolding situations. CCP leaders still study China’s legendary strategist, Sun Tzu, who advised centuries ago that if, “in the midst of difficulties, we are always ready to seize an advantage, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.”

Read more:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/confront-china-coronavirus-must-see-103029830.html

World

Malaysia committed to safeguarding its interests in S.China Sea - foreign minister

ReutersApril 22, 2020, 10:10 PM PDT

https://www.yahoo.com/news/malaysia-committed-safeguarding-interests-china-051026635.html

KUALA LUMPUR, April 23 (Reuters) - Malaysia remains committed to safeguarding its interests and rights in the South China Sea, Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Thursday, amid a standoff between Chinese and Malaysian vessels in the disputed waters.
U.S. and Australian warships arrived in the South China Sea this week near an area where a Chinese government survey vessel has been operating close to a drillship contracted by Malaysian state oil company Petronas, regional security sources have said.
Hishammuddin said any disputes should be resolved through peaceful means.
"While international law guarantees the freedom of navigation, the presence of warships and vessels in the South China Sea has the potential to increase tensions that in turn may result in miscalculations which may affect peace, security and stability in the region," Hishammuddin said in a statement. (Reporting by Rozanna Latiff; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)