Share This

Showing posts with label International Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Laws. Show all posts

Thursday, 19 June 2014

The truth about the South China Sea disputes: Vietnam and Philippine hyping up tensions

Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (left) shakes hands with Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh (right) at the Vietnamese government's guesthouse in Hanoi on Saturday. Photo: AFP

Hanoi told to halt Xisha hype

No breakthrough was made during the Wednesday meeting of Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, but experts hope tension between the nations will at least ease up. 

At Vietnam's invitation, Yang co-hosted the chairmen's meeting of the China-Vietnam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation in Hanoi, an inter-governmental mechanism set up for coordinating bilateral relations.

He also met with Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong later on Wednesday.

"The difficulties China and Vietnam face at the moment are because Vietnam has continually illegally harassed Chinese drilling operations in the waters near the Xisha Islands for more than a month," Yang said during the meeting with Minh.



 FM releases photos of Vietnam ship hitting Chinese patrol vessel

Yang stressed that the Xisha Islands are inherent territory of China and there are no disputes in this area. "The most urgent thing is for Vietnam to stop its interference and harassment, stop hyping up the issue and stop whipping up disagreement to create new disputes, and properly deal with the aftermath of the recent serious incidents of violence," Yang said.

No progress was made during the discussion, as the two sides insisted on their opposing positions, an anonymous Vietnamese official familiar with the talks was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Hainan Province, told the Global Times that it is predictable that Vietnam would insist on its stance as it claimed sovereignty over the Xisha Islands in a law passed in 2012.

"This one-time meeting alone can't solve all the problems the two countries face. However, the fact that these annual meetings have continued in spite of the South China Sea tension is already a good sign. It proves that both sides have a friendly intention to solve the dispute," said Gu Xiaosong, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences.

These are the highest-level talks between China and Vietnam after relations began to sour over the vessel ramming around the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig in May.

Vietnamese protests against the oil rig worsened into violent riots against Chinese nationals and businesses in southern and central Vietnam, which led to the deaths of four Chinese nationals. China has since announced the suspension of some bilateral exchange plans.

China's foreign ministry released substantial evidence earlier this month, including an official note from Vietnam's then-premier Pham Van Dong in 1958, to prove that Vietnam acknowledged China's sovereignty over the Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands at the time. Vietnam later reneged on its words.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Dung said last month that Vietnam was considering legal action against China over the disputed waters.

"Vietnam needs to assess the impact on itself if they sue China, as the [previous] evidence will prove China's claim. Vietnam stands more to lose in a bitter bilateral relationship with China. It should remain calm and exercise restraint to solve the disputes via negotiations," Wu noted.  - Global Times

Vietnam says it has evidence to prove its claim in South China Sea but is ignoring own historical documents that vindicate China's position

Vietnam has been using China-Vietnam clashes in the South China Sea, and distorting facts, fanning passions and playing up the "China threat" theory, to vilify China. Ignoring the overall development of Beijing-Hanoi relationship, Vietnam is pretending to be a "victim" in the South China Sea dispute, saying it is prepared to seek international arbitration on the issue.

Vietnamese leaders have said that they have enough historical evidence to justify Vietnam's sovereignty over "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands, claiming that Vietnam has been the "master" of the two islands since the 17th century. It seems like they have lifted their remarks straight out of a white paper "Truth of China-Vietnam Relationship over 30 Years", issued by the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry in 1979 when bilateral ties were not normal. Worse, almost all the arguments in that 1979 document were copied from a "white paper" issued by the Saigon-based puppet South Vietnam regime (or the Republic of Vietnam) in February 1974.

Now the Vietnamese leaders, using the so-called historical documents, are trying to claim that Vietnam's "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands are actually China's Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands. The fact is that, the islands recorded in Vietnamese documents refer to some other islands surrounding Vietnam instead of the Xisha and Nansha islands.

To encroach on China's territory in the 1970s, the South Vietnam regime distorted historical facts, which were adopted by later Vietnamese leaders for political purposes. This has complicated the issue and caused serious damage to Sino-Vietnamese ties.

A look at the evidence presented in China's diplomatic documents in the late 1970s and early 1980s will reveal the truth. In fact, even some Vietnamese scholars have said that the documents cited by Vietnam to claim sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha islands are not genuine historical records but edited versions of originals, confirming China's sovereignty over the islands.

Vietnamese leaders said China forcibly occupied the entire "Huangsha Islands" in 1974, which were then controlled by the Saigon regime. The Saigon regime had kicked up a row over the naval battle that broke out in 1974 in the waters around China's Xisha Islands and sought military support from its ally, the United States, and requested the UN Security Council's intervention. But neither the US nor the UN Security Council acceded to the Saigon regime's request. This means the international community, including the US, has never believed in Vietnam's complaints or claims.

On Sept 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi. In January 1950, the People's Republic of China became the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnam. For China and a vast majority of the other countries, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (later the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), was (and has been) the only legitimate government of Vietnam, and the government of South Vietnam, a puppet regime installed by French colonialists and American imperialists.

So now, about 39 years after defeating the Americans, why does the Socialist Republic of Vietnam want to use the Saigon regime's claim to create trouble in the South China Sea? Aren't the current Vietnamese leaders betraying Ho Chi Minh and other freedom fighters, profaning the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of their compatriots who laid down their lives to resist foreign aggressors, and negating the valued support of their allies in the battle against colonialism by citing the comprador Saigon regime's claim?

The Vietnamese government must not violate the principle of estoppel in the Xisha and Nansha islands' sovereignty issue. Vietnamese leaders claim that no country recognizes that the Xisha and Nansha islands belong to China. This is a brazen lie, because the Democratic Republic of Vietnam topped the list of countries that accepted China's sovereignty over the islands.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's position was unequivocal in the 1950s and 1960s. The position remained unchanged even after the death of Ho Chi Minh and the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Documents with the Chinese Foreign Ministry from the 1970s and 1980s show the position of the Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnamese Communist Party on the Xisha and Nansha islands. The most important of these documents is a note given by former Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong to Zhou Enlai and the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1965.

On Sept 4, 1958, the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China said that the breadth of the territorial sea of the country shall be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the PRC, including all the islands in the South China Sea. On Sept 14, 1958, Pham Van Dong solemnly stated in his note to Zhou Enlai that Vietnam recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the PRC on the country's territorial sea. On Sept 22, 1958, the diplomatic note was publicly published in Nhan Dan, the official newspaper of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

On May 9, 1965, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a statement on the US' definition on the "theater of war" in Vietnam. The statement said that by defining the whole of Vietnam and the waters up to 100 nautical miles off its coast as well as part of the territorial sea of China's Xisha Islands as the operational area of the US armed forces, Lyndon Johnson, then US president, has directly threatened the security of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and its neighbors.

In recent years, however, some Vietnamese government officials and "scholars" have tried to "reinterpret" the two government documents, only to end up making fools of themselves. And after their attempts failed, the Vietnamese government started pretending as if the two documents never existed.

Vietnam has said that it is fully prepared with historical and legal evidence to prove its claim in the South China Sea, and it is waiting for the appropriate time to take China to the international court of justice. If that is so, then Vietnam should not forget to attach Pham Van Dong's note and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's statement, as well as the maps and textbooks published by Vietnam before 1975, with its complaint.

By Ling Dequan (China Daily), a researcher with the Research Center of World Issues, affiliated to Xinhua News Agency

Related:  China blasts comments on S China Sea controversy

Chinese envoy rebuts Vietnamese, Philippine accusations over South China Sea

Wang Min (L Front), China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, addresses the meeting of state parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at the UN headquarters in New York June 13, 2014. Wang Min on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes. He slammed Vietnam and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territories. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)Wang Min (L Front), China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, addresses the meeting of state parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at the UN headquarters in New York June 13, 2014. Wang Min on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes. He slammed Vietnam and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territories. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes.

At the meeting of state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) held here, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, slammed Vietname and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territory.

Wang said that on May 2, a Chinese company's HYSY 981 drilling rig started its drilling operation inside the contiguous zone of China's Xisha Islands for oil and gas exploration. Vietnam sent a large number of vessels, including armed ones, to the site, illegally and forcefully disrupting the Chinese operation for over 1,400 times so far.

"What Vietnam did seriously infringed upon China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, grossly violated relevant international laws, including the UNCLOS, undermined the freedom and safety of navigation in the related waters, and damaged regional peace and stability," said Wang, who also heads the Chinese delegation to the meeting.

In mid-May, with the connivance of the Vietnamese government, thousands of Vietnamese outlaws committed sabotage against foreign companies, including Chinese ones, in Vietnam, brutally killing four Chinese nationals, injuring over 300 others and causing heavy property losses, Wang added.

"Till now, Vietnam still has not responded to our legitimate demand," he noted.

The envoy pointed out that lies can never eclipse truth, nor can publicity stunts provide a legal cloak for illegal actions.

"What Vietnam needs to do now is to respect China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, immediately stop all forms of disruptions of the Chinese operation and withdraw all vessels and personnel from the site, so as to ease the tension and restore tranquility on the sea as early as possible," Wang said.

He reiterated that Xisha Islands are an inherent part of China's territory, and are under effective jurisdiction of the Chinese government.

"There's no dispute about them," he said, pointing to the fact that all the successive Vietnamese governments prior to 1974 had formally acknowledged Xisha islands as part of China's territory since ancient times.

"Now the Vietnamese government is going back on its word and making territorial claims over China's Xisha Islands," Wang said, noting that Vietnam is reneging on its own promises, saying one thing today and denying it tomorrow.

"Our ancestors told us, trustworthiness is of paramount importance in state-to-state relations," he quoted.

"We would like to ask: how could Vietnam be trusted by the international community and how could Vietnam's international commitments be taken seriously in the future?" Wang said, referring to Vietnam's action as a violation of estoppel, a basic principle in the international law.

With regard to all the false accusations made by the Philippines against China, Wang pointed out the root cause of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the Philippines' illegal occupation of some islands and reefs belonging to China's Nansha islands.

"The Philippines attempts to legalize its infringements and provocations by dragging China into arbitral proceedings," he said. "The Philippines is also trying to win international sympathy and support through deception. This is what the problem is in essence."

The ambassador noted that pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS, the Chinese government made a declaration in 2006, excluding disputes over maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty from compulsory dispute settlement procedures.

"As a sovereign state and a state party to UNCLOS, China has the right under international law to do this. China does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines," Wang said, stressing that China's position based on the provisions of the international law will not change.

"China appreciates the efforts made by the majority of ASEAN countries to preserve regional peace and stability," he said. "We will continue working with ASEAN countries to strictly act on the DOC (the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea), promote practical cooperation, enhance mutual trust and jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea."

Source: Xinhuanet

Related:

The Operation of the HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position



BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China's Foreign Ministry released an article about the HYSY 981 drilling rig in the Xisha Islands on its website on Sunday. The full text is as follows:  Full story

China sends note to UN chief to clarify Xisha situation

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Monday sent a note to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting documents making clear Vietnam's provocation and China's stance regarding the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea.

In the note, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, also asked Ban to circulate the documents, as UN General Assembly documents, among all UN member states.  Full story


America wants to preserve the status quo in which its leading position remains the keystone of the regional order, and the Chinese acceptance of US leadership is the basis of US-China relationship.


We should promote overall security in the Asia-Pacific, work tirelessly to expand the scope of security cooperation, enrich its concept, deepen its level and establish a new security cooperation mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region.


Related posts:

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Double standards on Ukraine and Crimea


Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.

THE Russian incursion into Ukraine’s region of Crimea has, understandably, drawn strong critical response from the United States and the European Union. However, an impartial observer cannot fail to note the staggering hypocrisy evident in the Western response to Russia’s military actions.

International law: It is alleged that the Russian military intervention is a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty under international law. It probably is.

This is despite the fact that the Russian expedition was at the behest of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected and unlawfully deposed President.

What is noteworthy is that Russia acted under grave provocation and in circumstances that the US would never tolerate.

Background: Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been encircling Russia with military and missile sites including one in Ukraine.

Nato has enlisted many former Soviet republics into its fold.

Russia is understandably sensitive about its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine and Nato’s presence on its borders.

This is no different from President John F. Kennedy’s alarm when the USSR, under Nikita Khruschev, ins­talled missiles in Cuba in the Sixties.

In addition to military encirclement, a US organisation, namely the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was operating in Ukraine and funding 65 projects, grooming replacements for President Yanuko­vych and resorting to psychological warfare.

The NED was founded in America in 1983 to promote its foreign policy objectives abroad.

In recent times Ukraine was mired in an economic crisis and Russia and the EU were in a bidding war to salvage it. Russia earmarked US$15bil (RM49bil) in economic assistance. The EU offered US$800mil (RM2.6bil) plus access to EU goods and services.

When Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych aligned with Russia against the EU proposal, the Western backed opposition took to the streets.

The US-funded National Endowment for Democracy was complicit in fuelling the disorder. Radical forces gained ascendency and violence begat violence. 

Yanukovych, Ukraine’s democratically elected President, offered to set up a unity government, bring electoral reform, effect constitutional changes and call early elections.

Unfortunately, negotiations broke down. He was then ousted in a US-supported coup and replaced with US chosen stand-ins.

The Ukrainian Parliament then acted foolishly to enact a series of draconian laws offensive to ethnic Russians in provinces that were carved out of the old Soviet Union. Yanukovych sought Russia’s help to protect the ethnic Russian population.

Under these circumstances, the Russian Parliament authorised Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy troops inside Ukraine to protect the Russians living there.

US exceptionalism: The US has a long history of similar and even bloodier interventions as Russia’s. It has bombed or invaded 30 countries since World War Two.

In the last decade itself, there were full-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up charges plus bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.

US drones blow up “enemy combatants” in many parts of the world with sickening regularity.

The US keeps Syria and Iran under constant threats.

It refuses to join the International Criminal Court lest its international crimes be prosecuted.

Despite its professed belief in democracy, Washington has a sordid record of collaborating with right-wing military officers to overthrow elected leaders who do not do Washington’s bidding.

A partial list would include Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran (1953), Jacobo Arbez in Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende in Chile (1973), Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti twice, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (2002), Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2009), Mohammed Morsi in Egypt (2013) and now Yanukovych in Ukraine (2014).

A close parallel to the Russian intervention was President Bill Clinton’s invasion of Haiti in 1994 to reinstall Haiti’s elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Russia has not gone that far regarding Yanukovych.

Besides the US, France is notable for its recent military interventions in its former colonies of Mali and Central African Republic.

Unconstitutionality: The US alleges that the Crimean referendum that resulted in an overwhelming vote to join Russia was contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution.

In fact, the trampling of the Ukrainian Constitution was equally evident in the ouster of the democratically elected President, which the US lustily cheered.

Under the Constitution of 1996 (which was restored by Yanukovych in 2010) Parliament has the right to impeach a President for treason or other crimes by a three-fourths majority.

This majority was not obtained. The impeachment must be reviewed by a Constitutional Court and it is not clear whether this mandatory procedure was complied with.

Also, it is the PM and not the Speaker of the House, who should under the Constitution fill the vacant presidency.

Secession: If Crimea’s secession is illegal, can the US explain its support for the secession of Bosnia, Kosovo, Slovakia, the Falkland Islands, East Timor, Scotland and Catalonia?

In fact the West was delirious about the break-up of Sudan.

One could point to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) that “all people have the right of self-determination”.

Cold war: The Crimean crisis reignites the Cold War between Russia and the West. At stake is Ukraine’s return to the Russian sphere of influence or its drift towards the West.

Alternatively, the country will split into two – its Western part drifting towards a reluctant Europe and the South and the East remaining aligned with Russia.

Whichever superpower wins, Ukraine will be the loser of this East-West tug of war.

The Crimean Tartars face an uncertain future in Russia.

In the meantime, one cannot but marvel at the breathtaking hypocrisy of all sides – the US and EU on Ukraine and Russia on Chechnya.

William Blum puts it well: “Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected”!

Contributed by Shad Saleem Faruqi Reflecting On The Law

> Shad Faruqi, Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM, is a passionate student and teacher of the law who aspires to make difficult things look simple and simple things look rich. Through this column, he seeks to inspire change for the better as every political, social and economic issue ultimately has constitutional law implications. He can be reached at prof.shad.saleem.faruqi@gmail.com. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Related posts:

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

The hypocrisy of some nations


Video:U.S. Hypocrisy? Telling Russia To Stay Out of Ukraine

Double standards are on display as Western leaders attack Russia regarding Ukraine, while they themselves commit or endorse worse aggression on other countries.

WORLD attention has focused on Ukraine recently. With President Victor Yanukovych making his exit and a new government formed, events shifted to Crimea, with accusations that the Russian military took over the region.

Yanukovych, resurfacing in a Russian town, said he left as his life was at risk, the new regime is illegitimate, and he is still the president.

Sizeable crowds in Crimea (many of whose population are ethnic Russian) are showing anti-Kiev and pro-Russian feelings and the Crimean Parliament had decided to hold a referendum on whether to remain in Ukraine or break away and be part of Russia.

Western leaders have attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin for his alleged invasion of Crimea.

The Russian argument is that it has not invaded, that in any case it has a legitimate interest in Crimea due to historical links and the ethnic Russians who live there have asked for protection against the new and illegitimate Kiev regime.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Russia’s position and actions, it is clear that there has been a long historical Russian-Crimea-Ukraine relationship. The complex condition requires a correspondingly complex solution.

The rhetoric of some Western leaders is aggressive. They accused Russia of violating sovereignty and international law, among other things.

The United States plans to ban visas for selected Russian officials, followed by sanctions on Russian banks, freezing assets of its companies, and possibly trade measures.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have accused Putin of making use of false claims for its invasion, that Crimea is in danger.

“This is the 21st century and we should not see nations step backwards to behave in a 19th or 20th century fashion,” said Kerry. “It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.”

Obama said “Russia cannot with impunity put its soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognised around the world”, adding that Russia is “on the wrong side of history”.

Listening to the American leaders lecturing Russia in their self-righteous tone, one is struck by the double standards and hypocrisy involved.

They don’t seem to realise how they have violated the same principles and behaviour they demand of Russia.

It was after all the United States that invaded Iraq in 2003, massively bombing its territory and killing hundreds of thousands, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction.

The UN Security Council would not give the green light. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Many experts considered the war against Iraq a violation of international law, a view also expressed in a media interview by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in 2011 found former US president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq war.

The United States also waged war in Afghanistan, changing the regime, resulting in thousands of deaths. In Libya, the US and its allies carried out massive bombing, which aided opposition forces and led to the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Even now there are sanctions and the threat of military action against Iran on the suspicion it wants to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied.

In contrast, the US turns a blind eye on Israel’s ownership of nuclear weapons. And when Israel conducted the blanket bombing of Lebanon and Gaza in recent years, with thousands of deaths, there was no condemnation at all from the US, which has also blocked UN Security Council resolutions and actions on its ally.

The US has also come under attack from human rights groups for its use of drones against suspected terrorists but which has also killed many civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council published a Special Rapporteur’s report which detailed the deaths of civilians caused by US drone attacks, and raised many questions of possible violations of international human rights law.

All these actions were done in the 21st century, which adds to many other actions in the 20th century.

It’s thus remarkable that Obama and Kerry could with a straight face accuse Russia of not acting in a 21st century manner, and being on the wrong side of history.

There appears to be still one law for the most powerful, and another for others. The former can invade and kill, while lecturing self-righteously to others.

Whatever one thinks of Russia’s action in Crimea, it should be noted that no one has been killed because of it, at least not yet. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands or millions, who have died and suffered from past and present wars of the US and other Western countries.

Though much of the mainstream media also takes the establishment view, some Western journalists have also pointed out their leaders’ hypocrisy.

In an article, “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy in Ukraine,” the well-known American journalist Robert Parry remarked: “Since World War II, the United States has invaded or otherwise intervened in so many countries that it would be challenging to compile a complete list …

“So, what is one to make of Secretary of State John Kerry’s pronouncement that Russia’s military intervention in the Crimea section of Ukraine – at the behest of the country’s deposed president – is a violation of international law that the United States would never countenance?

“Are Kerry and pretty much everyone else in Official Washington so lacking in self-awareness that they don’t realise that they are condemning actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin that are far less egregious than what they themselves have done?”

Parry concludes that the overriding hypocrisy of the media, Kerry and nearly all of Official Washington is their insistence that the United States actually promotes the principle of democracy or, for that matter, the rule of international law.

Global Trends - By Martin Khor

> The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:
1.  Western hegemony & violence: ousting democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and elsewhere!
2.  Human Rights Record of the United States in 2013
3.  US double standard on terrorism encourages slaughters

Related: 

Nation of Hypocrites 

America is tragically becoming a “Nation of Hypocrites”. How is this so? ... Is it any wonder then that some people look down upon us rather than respect us?

Rightways