陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由，毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! 陈凯博客 Kai Chen Blog: www.blogspot.com 陈凯电邮 Kai Chen Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 陈凯电话 Kai Chen Telephone: 661-367-7556
太平洋自由繁荣联合体 A Pacific Alliance for Peace
太平洋自由繁荣联合体 A Pacific Alliance for Peacein 陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由，毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:31 pm
by fountainheadkc • 1.370 Posts
我曾在过去的文章中建议建立“PATO - Pacific Asian Treaty Organization 亚太公约组织”。 今天美日智库中的人刚有同样的想法。 我将我过去的文章贴在后面。
I have written an article suggesting a establishment of "PATO" (Pacific Asian Treaty Organization). Today finally someone in American and Japan think tank has the similar suggestion. I now paste my past article regarding this issue after today's article. --- Kai Chen
A Pacific Alliance for Peace
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 27, 2009
As the left-leaning news media relish reports that President Barack Obama is seeking to temper the image of the United States as the world’s preeminent power, it can be forgotten that there are overseas allies who want and need America to remain strong and vigilant against rising threats. They want America to continue its leadership role in forging coalitions to meet global dangers. This message was very clear at a conference April 17 in Washington sponsored by two Japanese think tanks, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the Ocean Policy Research Foundation.
The theme of the conference was the U.S.-Japan Maritime Alliance and how it can be expanded. Japan’s ambassador Shotaro Yachi opened the session by reading a message from Prime Minister Taro Aso calling for Washington and Tokyo to take the lead in building an “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity” which would sweep across “Japan, the Republic of Korea, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Central Asia, Guam, Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic region and Scandinavia roughly speaking.” This geographical description is of the opposite side of the “Arc of Instability” that has been used since the 1970s to describe the main trouble spots in the Eurasian landmass. The positive concept of the Arc would be founded on the values of “freedom, democracy, basic human rights, the rule of law and the market economy” according to Aso. The Asia-Pacific section of the Arc, extending as far as the Persian Gulf, would be backed by a “Seapower Network” that should expand beyond the current U.S.-Japan alliance to include Australia, India and the United Kingdom.
In this formulation, it is not difficult to understand from where the threats to those protected by the Arc alliance are expected to come. For diplomatic reasons, Aso had to say that the Arc “is not intended to contain China or Russia,” but his extended remarks were filled with examples of the dangers Beijing and Moscow pose to peace, stability and economic development.
The Prime Minister noted China’s advancement to the ocean is particularly spectacular. The Chinese Navy is proactively modernizing. We also have information that China is working to build aircraft carriers. China’s opaque expansion and modernization of its military, including the Navy, may greatly impact the maritime security environment which is so important to both Japan and the U.S. Moreover, Russia is increasingly more actively engaged in military activities in the Far East.
A major element in the “Japan-United States Seapower Alliance for Stability and Prosperity on the Oceans” paper presented at the conference by the Ocean Policy Research Foundation is development of seabed resources, both minerals and energy. The proposal calls for joint research and the sharing of new technology that can reach these untapped resources. But it is also clear that ocean wealth will also have to be protected from rivals. Prime Minister Aso pointed out that Japan and China have conflicting claims in the East China Sea, and that “China continues to carry out unilateral development based on its own claims. This cannot be considered to be an action of a responsible major power.” He also noted “excessive claims of jurisdiction by coastal states. This is a problem the U.S. Navy has faced from Chinese harassment of its ships in international waters. Beijing claims that the Exclusive Economic Zones awarded by the UN Law of the Sea Treaty confer sovereignty over large ocean expanses and not just a limited right to exploit resources.
Japan also has territorial disputes with Russia, and Aso mentioned the construction plan Moscow has for a strategic nuclear submarine base on the Kamchatka peninsula. China has recently built a similar base on Hainan Island menacing the South China Sea.
Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared in person to deliver the keynote address at the Sasakawa conference. He echoed Aso’s arguments, and even compared, without naming names, the rising Chinese threat to that posed earlier by the Soviet Union. He stated that during the Cold War, Japan was the “cap in the bottle” past which the Soviet fleet could not pass from its Pacific base at Vladivostok. He then observed that the “Japanese island chain can fulfill the same role against another power if it pushes the envelop.” Geographically that chain could be seen as extending all the way south to Taiwan and the Philippines, forming a base for containing China’s naval ambitions.
Beijing is well aware of island geography. In the 2005 report on China Military Power issued annually by the U.S. Defense Department, General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the elite People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Science, is quoted as saying that taking control of Taiwan is of “far reaching significance to breaking international forces’ blockade against China’s maritime security….to rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” Chinese strategists have discussed the creation of their own “string of pearls” naval bases to control the sea lanes of the Pacific Rim.
The OPRF paper urges Washington and Tokyo “to cooperate with all nations opposing the emergence of any aspiring hegemonic state that could disrupt the balance of power on the seas and create instability in the security environment” another thinly veiled reference to the rise of China. “The process of building the new seapower alliance will also serve as a new challenge for the Japan-U.S. alliance that many believe is beginning to waiver, “says the OPRF document.
An example of those who believe the alliance should not just waiver but dissolve was presented during the question period following Abe’s speech. Stanley Kober, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, cited out of context George Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances.” He then claimed such alliances only serve to keep the world divided. He asked the former Prime Minister, “If the U.S. and Japan strengthen their alliance, what will Russia and China do?” Kober also thought it was a mistake to try to include India in the alliance. Cato has a history of trying to undermine American defense policy, and has been exhibiting a growing pro-Chinese bias.
Cato Vice President Gene Healy made the same reference to “entangling alliances” in a recent op-ed calling for “genuine, and deep, cuts in military spending” in which he also cited the “counterintuitive claim” of Christopher Preble, Cato’s Director of Foreign Policy Studies, that “our military dominance actually makes us less safe.” Last summer, Malou Innocent, another Cato foreign policy analyst, wrote an op-ed criticizing presidential candidate Sen. John McCain for “talking too tough on Russia and China.” She called on the next president “to continue cooperating with China and Russia.” Cato pronouncements are obsessed with trade and investment in China, reflecting the views of corporate interests who hope to profit from helping Beijing rise as a great power without regard for the impact on world politics or American security.
Abe responded to Kober by restating that the U.S., Japan and India “are democracies with shared interests” who also believe in human rights and the rule of law. Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Abe declared, “The United States has no better friend in the world than Japan.” Other Japanese speakers at the conference reinforced this point. Shunji Yanai, an advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and professor at Waseda University argued that the Iraq War has helped pull Washington and Tokyo closer together, as has the crisis over North Korean nuclear and missile programs. Japan sent military engineers to Iraq to help with reconstruction and has deployed naval units to support coalition operations in Afghanistan. Yanai also believes that North Korea has a secret uranium enrichment program that has not been addressed by the Six Party Talks orchestrated by China.
Naoyuki Agawa, a Dean at Keio University, joined Yanai in support of changes in Japanese constitutional interpretation to allow Tokyo to play a more active role in collective security operations. He agreed that joint operations in the Middle East have pulled the two fleets together and proclaimed, “Despite legal and constitutional restraints, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force is willing to fight alongside its fellow sailors” in the U.S. Navy.
It may not come to that. A strengthened and expanded alliance of maritime nations can serve as a powerful deterrent to the ambitions of China, Russia and their dangerous prodigies in Iran, Burma, North Korea and elsewhere. It will, however, take more than proclamations. Words must lead to actions.
The lunch speaker at the conference was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral William Crowder, who had been commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Pacific. He was dismayed by how much the size of the U.S. Navy has declined in recent decades. Today it has less than half the warships that were as sea when Ronald Reagan was president. The cuts in naval programs announced April 6 by the Obama administration, along with other cuts in high end programs involving aviation and missile defense that are part of the proposed 2010 defense budget, will undermine the favorable balance of power now enjoyed by the United States.
A warning from Japanese leaders of what is at stake in Asia could not have come at a more important moment.
[size=24]支持亚太协防，阻慑中共北韩 Support Asia's PATO[/size]
Wicked men obey from fear; good men, from love. --- Aristotle
邪恶之人只服从恐惧；良德之人则尊崇爱心。 --- Aristotle
Dear Visitors: (Sat Sep 30, 2006)
NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, had played a crucial role in the downfall of the former USSR. America and European democracies banded together to have formed a strong military alliance to deter the expansionist USSR and its evil motive for global domination.
Now with the initiative from the new Japanese Premier Abe, the Asian Pacific region should soon have an allied military force to deter the evil regimes of China and North Korea under their communist rulers. We should call this new allied military organization centered around America, Japan, Australia and India, (the four major democracies in the Asian Pacific region) PATO -- short for Pacific Asian Treaty Organization.
In recent years, since the downfall of the USSR and the world wide communist regimes, Asia has become the focal point of potential military confrontation between good and evil, between the dying, struggling communist regimes represented by China and North Korea, and major and new fledgling democracies such as America, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Flash points around the 38 parallel in Korea and the Taiwan Strait due to the threat from North Korea testing missiles and its intention to possess nuclear weapons and China's repeated claim to use military force to repossess Taiwan, are the main concerns in today's Asia's political instability. A strong military alliance by America, Japan, Australia and India, plus some other willing democratic participants, will be just like the NATO in Europe during the cold war, forming an effective deterrence to the evil aggression from China and North Korea.
Time is on the Freedom side, the evil regimes from China and North Korea know this well. As long as peace prevails, these evil regimes will gradually fade away and collapse. But before they do, they will mount a desperate attempt to revive their grab on power. Creating an outside enemy by starting a war is always the means to maintain their control over their own population. PATO - Pacific Asian Treaty Organization will a very effective answer to this potential threat and instability in Asia.
I applaud Japan's new Premier's initiative to start forming such an alliance. And I urge all my readers and colleagues to support his initiative as well.
Best. Kai Chen 陈凯
RE: 太平洋自由繁荣联合体 A Pacific Alliance for Peacein 陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由，毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:03 pm
by fountainheadkc • 1.370 Posts
陈凯一语：Kai Chen's Words:
美国左翼与奥巴马行政当局的对华绥靖政策将会危及美国政治文化的健康、经济的竞争力与美国国家的安全。 --- 陈凯
American left and the Obama administration's appeasement toward China with its own socialist (environmentalist) agenda will invariably endanger the health of American political culture, weaken American economy's competitiveness and national security. --- Kai Chen
Dragon Us Down, the Green Way
By: William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, July 01, 2009
When the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) by a narrow 219-212 margin in the last Friday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the China’s Communist government both celebrated for the same reason: the vote was a sign of their growing power. The environmentalist bill aims to reduce alleged global warming pollution by 17 percent in 2020 from its 2005 level. All sides of the debate agree on one thing: the cost of this effort will be enormous. The Congressional Budget Office says the new carbon “cap and trade” system established under the bill will rake in $846 billion in taxes over the next decade. The Heritage Foundation estimates that increased revenues will amount to $5.7 trillion by 2035, adjusting for inflation. Heritage and Obama agree that electricity prices will “skyrocket” by 90 percent and gasoline prices by 74 percent, beyond normal price fluctuations. The negative impact on U.S. economic growth and living standards will be tremendous. And the Chinese welcome the news as another step toward eroding America’s days as the world’s lone superpower. Beijing has played a cynical game of supporting strict climate change standards for its enemies while refusing to impose any on its own economic growth.
Nancy Pelosi, who has had a stellar record on human rights issues since her election to Congress two decades ago, has been one of the chief enablers of this policy. On June 4, back on U.S. soil, Pelosi led other members of Congress and Chinese human rights activists in commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, among them Harry Wu, perhaps the best known Chinese dissident in exile, whom she thanked “for leading the effort to display the Tiananmen Photo Exhibition here in the Rayburn Building.” But when she was in China’s corridors of power a few days earlier, her tone had been more about cooperation with Beijing than confrontation, reflecting more the posture of President Barack Obama than her own long record as a critic of the Communist dictatorship. Madam Speaker spoke briefly about human rights and delivered a letter calling for release of certain prisoners of conscience to Chinese officials. But she conceded her “focus was on climate change and what we can do between our two countries to help reach some agreement that will help serve us all well in a multilateral decision that will be made at Copenhagen” – the UN conference scheduled to meet at Copenhagen in December to draft the treaty that will replace the Kyoto Protocol and set targets for reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. In an attempt to square the circle, Pelosi claimed dubiously, “protecting the environment is a human rights issue.”
Traveling with Pelosi to China was Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA, a prime author of the cap-and-trade bill. At the June 2 press conference heralding the return of the delegation, Rep, Markey said “The Speaker did a masterful job of explaining to the leaders of the Chinese government that environmental justice requires the United States and China to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.” He then patted himself on the back, nothing Chinese leaders, including the president, “were each aware” of “the Waxman-Markey legislation, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi. And they were discussing climate change and energy issues with us in that context that there was now significant movement in the United States Congress on these issues.”
This was but one of a string of environmentalist delegations the Obama administration has sent to China, starting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in February and running to Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern last week. Stern’s post is a new one created within the State Department to serve as the administration’s chief climate policy advisor and negotiator. Stern had worked on the staff of Sen. Pat Leahy, D-VT, and for the Center for American Progress. When Secretary Clinton made the announcement of Stern’s appointment in January, she spoke of “the complex, urgent, and global threat of climate change.” Last week, Stern stated the Chinese “need to take significant national actions that they commit to internationally, that they quantify, and that are ambitious.” President Obama hoped his Chinese charm offensive would unite Washington and Beijing in a fight against global climate change.
He has enjoyed mixed success: China has embraced global climate change legislation – for the rest of the world. At home, it has made clear its economic gain – and the military might its growing economy funds – take primacy.
This was on display at the UN climate conference held from June 1-12 in Bonn, Germany. When representatives of Japan announced the nation’s goal of reducing emissions by 15 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level, China immediately attacked the proposal as insufficient. At the June 11 Foreign Ministry press conference, spokesman Qin Gang said Tokyo’s plan “clearly falls short of the urgency of tackling climate change and the common aspiration of the international community.” He then restated Beijing’s position:
“For a successful Copenhagen Conference [the following UN climate conference], we uphold that countries should adhere to the framework of...the Kyoto Protocol, strictly follow the authorization of the Bali Roadmap and stick to the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities.’ Developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction and set their targets in the second commitment period at the Copenhagen Conference, that is, a 40 percent reduction by 2020 from the 1990 level. Developed countries should also honor their commitment of providing capital and technological transfer as well as support to the capacity building of developing countries.”
At the same conference, the Chinese delegation said its country would be increasing its greenhouse emissions as it continued to develop its economy, and would not sign on to any plan for mandatory cuts. In a time of rising energy costs, Beijing does want to explore alternative sources, but the motive is economic rather than environmental. Beijing would also like to reduce urban pollution for health reasons, but not at the cost of growth. In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said it was impossible for China, which depends heavily on coal, to accept mandatory emission reduction targets. But he said developing countries could help contain carbon emissions as long as the wealthy industrial countries give them the needed technology and money. In China’s view, the developed countries of America, Europe and Japan have to be the ones to make all the sacrifices.
Chinese officials gave this same message to Special Envoy Stern on his visit.
Some have pondered how to enforce global climate sanctions against Beijing. During her June 2 press conference, Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Markey were asked how to compel China to adopt more stringent emissions standards. Markey noted, “The Ways and Means Committee now will have the ability to construct a standby tariff,” adding ominously this was “not to be imposed until years from now.” Specifically, no repercussions would be enacted until the year 2025. This is the position, not only of Markey and Pelosi, but of the Obama administration.
This is a most ignoble state of affairs for Speak Nancy Pelosi, who earned a sterling record on Chinese human rights, better than many Republicans.
Rep. Pelosi was in her second term when the Beijing regime ordered troops to assault pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, killing thousands. She seized the issue as a centerpiece of her agenda. The biography posted on her official website states, “She has fought to improve China's human rights record, attempting to tie trade to increased human rights standards. She has also been a leader on efforts to free the people of Tibet.”
In 1991, Pelosi led reporters and others on an unauthorized visit to Tiananmen Square where she unfurled a banner dedicated, “To those who died for democracy in China.” Her group was immediately surrounded by security forces. The Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced the incident as a “premeditated farce,” and Pelosi’s host, the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, called it a “deliberate anti-China incident.” Six years later, when Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited Washington, Pelosi led a demonstration across the street from his Blair House reception.
She has clashed with both Republican and Democratic presidents over China policy. In 1991, Pelosi sponsored a bill to give Chinese students the right to remain in the United States rather than risk returning home. President George H. W. Bush vetoed it. The House overrode the veto, but the Senate upheld it. Under public pressure, the senior Bush issued an executive order to protect the students.
The following year, Pelosi was a leader in tying “overall significant progress” in human rights, trade practices, and weapons proliferation to the annual presidential grant of Most Favored Nation trade status to China. President Bush vetoed the legislation, believing that doing business in China was a key part of an “engagement” policy meant to improve relations. Pelosi opposed MFN for China on the grounds that economic progress without political reform would only strengthen the dictatorship. The transfer of technology and capital has given the regime more resources to support is ambitions.
During the 1990s when I worked for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, we often found common ground with Rep. Pelosi on China policy, even though our two offices were generally on extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum on every other issue. Indeed, China brought Pelosi into alignment with some of the most conservative Republican members, who were themselves considered mavericks because they defied the business lobby that was rushing to invest with Beijing. Carolyn Bartholomew held top staff positions with Pelosi during those years, and is now the chairwoman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission where some of Washington’s best work on China is being done.
Rep. Pelosi openly criticized President Bill Clinton for visiting Tiananmen Square during a 1998 trip to China to advance trade relations, seeing it as a gesture of appeasement rather than a protest. “What do they expect me to say?” Pelosi asked. “That it's not OK for a Republican president to coddle dictators, but it's OK for a Democrat?”
Is the Congresswoman who opposed President Clinton now willing to oppose new Democratic President Barack Obama on China?
Speaker Pelosi knows from years of study and experience the aggressive and brutal nature of the Beijing regime. And Chinese statements have only served to confirm its intent to exploit the Western mania about climate change to:
1.cripple Beijing’s rivals, in particular the United States, Japan, and Europe;
2.push for the transfer of capital and technology under the guise of Green cooperation; and
3.expand existing competitive trade advantages as a haven for high emission industrial production.
The ultimate aim of Chinese policy is to fundamentally change the global balance of power in its favor.
Rather than parrot the naïve White House line about a partnership with China, Pelosi and her colleagues need to set the administration straight. They should argue vigorously for a change in policy to one that will support the strong American economic growth needed to raise living standards here and keep the United States the preeminent power in world affairs. China’s unfettered rise is not just a danger to the environment, it is a threat to America’s prosperity and security.
William Hawkins is a consultant on international economics and national security issues.