As the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague will announce the so-called "award" on July 12, a new smear campaign against China has emerged, this time by veteran Washington attorney Paul Reichler.
Though Reichler as an international lawyer enjoys a reputation for representing small countries against big powers, he has no right to depict China as an "outlaw state" for no reason.
In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, the Philippines' chief lawyer said China risks being seen as an "outlaw state" unless it respects the outcome.
The Philippines, a U.S. ally, is challenging the validity of the China's nine-dash line referring to the demarcation line of the South China Sea, that came almost half a century ahead of the UNCLOS. The so-called South China Sea tensions have been mounting since Obama-Hillary Administration took America's policy of containment of China to a strategy of “Pivot to Asia”, or more specifically “US rebalancing to Asia”. US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, announced that the Pentagon would shift 60 percent of US naval assets to the Indo-Pacific region by 2020, in 2012. US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel declared that the US Air Force would also “allocate 60 percent of its overseas-based forces to the Asia Pacific—including tactical aircraft and bombers from the continental United States.” In the same year the Philippines arbitration case against China was brought by the previous Philippine government of Benigno Aquino III, and Paul Reichler, a Washington lawyer, was appointed the Philippines' chief counsel representing the Philippines.
Paul Reichler is an international lawyer but not usually known as "for representing small countries against big powers." He plays a role in the escalation of Washington’s aggressive moves against China. He, like former US State secretary Hillary Clinton (a lawyer-politician), acts as a master dissembling international law. The Philippines case is a move of Washington playing chess game of "US rebalancing to Asia”.
Joseph Santolan pointed out in the last year: "Manila’s legal case, which aims to invalidate the entirety of China’s nine-dash line territorial claim to the South China Sea, is part of Washington’s campaign of increasing military and political pressure against Beijing. Over the past year, Washington has not only brought military tensions in the sea to a fever pitch with its deliberate provocations against China, it has moved to undermine China’s territorial claims as well.
In December 2014, the US State Department issued a 26-page memorandum studying China’s maritime claim in the South China Sea, which concluded that, unless China revised its claim, it was 'not in accordance with the law of the sea'." -- Joseph Santolan "US lawyers argue Manila’s case against China in The Hague", 9 July, 2015.
Paul Reichler told the Associated Press late Thursday (June 30, 2016) he was optimistic the court would rule in his client's favor. He barely spoke out the pursuer of Washington brought Philippines case. He wish the South China Sea could be the next hotspots in the world. "If the nine-dash line is unlawful as applied by China against the Philippines, then logically it is equally unlawful as applied by China" against other states, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, Reichler said. He said if China persisted in trying to enforce illegal claims, it would impact relations with its neighbors.
It's obviously that Washington and some international figures such as American lawyer Reichler, Japanese lawyer-diplomat Judge Yanai, attempt to rewrite China's history and direct an arbitration based on an abuse of international law and the international arbitration mechanism, in order to serve US pivot to Asia. Washington set on fire anywhere in Asia, and its minions fan the flames to burn China with neighbors. But, in fact, as of today, the record shows that China has successfully concluded territorial disputes with 12 of its 14 neighbors. This is quite an accomplishment. What's more, China has no aspirations to colonize or conquer foreign lands. Nor does it uphold any religious or ideological motives to influence other people or to take over foreign lands. Solving remaining territorial disputes continues to be pursued peacefully. China is firmly moving forward. The US pivot to Asia will fail.
President Xi Jinping warned foreign countries against "harming" China's sovereignty on last Friday, July 1, 2016. "No foreign country should expect us to swallow the bitter pill of harm to our national sovereignty, security or development interests," said Xi.
Let me take some space looking at concepts of "American leadership" in the world motivating US pivot to Asia, the one slogan Washington leaders flaunt and American people commonly acclaim.
About two year ago, President Obama delivered remarks on American leadership at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony. Shortly after beginning part, he showed off four years more counterterrorism efforts and economy out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then asserted, "by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world," "From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations." "So the United States is the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed, and will likely be true for the century to come,” he said. ("Can the US really lead the world for another 100 years?" Quora posted. Answers disagree. Jerry Mc Kenna, Amateur astronomer, said "The US doesn't lead the world and is not even close. It can be seen a leader of the West, if you define the West as the countries that were in the Western part of Europe after WWII, plus the US and Canada. The US imposed its order after WWII, on a virtually bankrupt Europe, it didn't have a choice since it was the lead power among the victors (Britain was broke). That order has been accepted because the nations under it have done well in the last 60 years. One can add Japan and Korea to the mix for similar reasons. The US needed Japan and helped rebuild Japan, the US had troops in South Korea to keep the truce. In the rest of the world, the results of US power aren't as clearly positive and US leadership is barely accepted and barely tolerated (just look at Iraq)."
Irene Colthurst, Observant of the drama: "'Another'? Wait. The Second World War ended in 1945, and was immediately followed by the Cold War. Technically, the US did not achieve unipolar superpower status until late 1991, when the USSR collapsed. So, at most, the US 'led' the world through the 1990s.")
“America must always lead on the world stage," Obama declared. "If we don’t, no one else will.”
He spent his much time describing his vision for how the U.S. and its military should lead in the years to come. First of all, "The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger." "On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action." This president prescription well interprets, to take the South China Sea as an example, what the US has done about the sea areas in dispute (stir American conscience?), such leadership, in fact, has been pushing the area issues between China and some countries directly related in the progress of bilateral dialogue and negotiation towards dangerous.
Obama's principles of American leadership and everything the US has done are full of contradiction. The point of American leadership is American strength. "In each case, we built coalitions to respond a specific challenge," do more to strengthen the institutions such as NATO, working with NATO allies to meet new missions, both within Europe (reassurance of Eastern allies,) and beyond Europe's borders (counterterrorism,) but reduce the U.N. to a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. (The U.S. has, since the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, done about everything it could to undermine the U.N. Obama's opinion of the U.N. is close to US withdrawal from the United Nations.)
"In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea. And we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law." By the South China Sea Obama talked about American example leadership. "American influence is always stronger when we lead by example," "We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate (As of today nothing has been done about it by the United Congress. We may predict that will never happen), despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security." (By Obama's example leadership, it is logically that the US has done about the South China could be branded as an "outlaw state" by international community.)
Now Xi gave the official response to Obama's US leadership that the world order should be decided not by one country or a few, but by broad international agreement. "It's for the people of all countries to decide through consultations what international order and global governance systems can benefit the world and people of all nations," he says.]