Rightway Technologies

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Investigations to determine source of its foreign funding

KUALA LUMPUR: Investigations are being conducted on Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, the company linked to non-governmental organisation Suaram, to determine the source and extent of its foreign funding.

So far, the “money trail” dates back to 2005 with the amount totalling over RM2mil.

The two main contributors are the American-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the George Soros-linked Open Society Institute (OSI), which have been financing groups supporting its interests and objectives around the world.

The NED supposedly provided US$535,000 (RM1.605mil) to Suaram while OSI gave about US$248,000 (RM744,000).

Suaram's No 3 funder was identified as the South-East Asia Centre for e-Media (Seacem), with the German Embassy as the fourth.

The investigations centred on financial transactions conducted with Suara Inisiatif to counter-check “misleading information” and “suspicious transactions” in the company's accounts.

The NED dedicates itself to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions and awards grants to organisations with programmes consistent with its (political) objectives.

Among others, it was reported to have provided funds to groups in Xinjiang and Tibet opposed to the Chinese Government.

OSI, started by financier Soros in 1984 to help countries make the transition from communism, is active in more than 50 countries in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the US.

Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob had said that legal action would be taken against Suaram and Suara Inisiatif by various government agencies for reporting a “misleading” account in its annual report.

He revealed that CCM's investigation had allegedly detected serious violations of at least five sections of the Companies Act by Suaram and Suara Inisiatif.

The minister also called for an investigation into an American NGO's alleged funding of Suaram and urged Bank Negara to investigate the matter under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.

On Wednesday, the Attorney-General's Chambers directed CCM to further check accounts and other related offences under the Companies Act.

By PAUL GABRIEL paulnews@thestar.com.my

U.S. has responsibility to rein unruly allies for Asia-Pacific stability

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday began his three-nation Asia-Pacific tour, during which he will pay his first visit as Pentagon chief to China to deepen military ties, a visit overshadowed by rising tensions in the region.

To prevent the tense situation from further escalation, the U.S. government should take the responsibility to rein in its unruly allies in the region including Japan and the Philippines.

Washington should discourage Japan's provocations and rectify its own wrong position of applying the U.S.-Japan security treaty to China's Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. It also should warn Manila against making further provocations in the South China Sea, and urge it to return to the negotiating table.

When Panetta made remarks before reporters aboard ahead of his landing in Tokyo on Sunday evening, the first stop of his trip, the U.S. apparently was attempting to play a "detached" arbitrator of the territorial disputes, a role that hadn't been invited by any concerning parties.

Panetta said, "I am concerned that when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgement on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict."

He even alarmed that provocations over the territorial disputes could blow up into a war unless governments exercised more restraint.

To be frank, the U.S. isn't qualified to behave as a judge for the disputes, because it hasn't played a constructive role in the process.

Instead, it shoulders certain historical responsibilities for the chronic disputes, and has, more or less, fanned relevant countries' provocative moves with its biased words or actions and added instability to the region.

Both Japan and the Philippines have been making reckless provocations against China this year in an attempt to obtain undeserved territorial gains in the East China Sea and South China Sea, emboldened by the U.S. "Pivot to Asia" policy, which has featured increased military deployment and involvement in the region.

In the past week, the world witnessed one of the most blatant acts of sabotaging Asian peace and stability by Japan, the staunchest ally of the U.S. in the region, with its completion of the so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands that are inherently part of China's sovereign territory. China totally rejects Japan's act of theft, and is taking necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On the dispute, Washington cannot shake off its responsibility for sowing the seeds of conflict. The U.S., through a backroom deal with Japan in 1971, transferred the administration of Ryukyu Islands (known as Okinawa today) and Diaoyu Islands, which were then under the U.S. trusteeship after World War II, to Japan. China has firmly opposed this deal from the very beginning.

Earlier this year, the Philippines, partially encouraged by U.S. support, also sparked a tense standoff with China in the South China Sea by sending a naval ship to harass Chinese fishermen operating legally in China's territorial waters around the Huangyan Islands.

Panetta's China visit, on the bright side, symbolizes the continuation of a good momentum in the U.S.-China relations, which feature regular high-level dialogues and exchanges of visit by senior political and military leaders.

The visit was reciprocal to the one paid by his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie to the Pentagon in May.

The visits have helped increase mutual understanding and advance the China-U.S. cooperation partnership and military-to-military ties.

On the other side, due to the current rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, the success of Panetta's visit will be judged by how he will reassure Beijing that Washington is willing to do more things conducive to regional peace and stability, which are now threatened by some of the U.S. allies.

The U.S. should understand that, if it continues to allow its allies to fish in troubled waters in the Asia Pacific and let the tensions spin out of control, no countries in the region can escape unscathed.

The U.S. must know better than other countries what it should do to benefit Asia-Pacific stability.

By Zhi Linfei (Xinhua)

Related posts:

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

Friday, September 21, 2012

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Historical documents dating back to the Ming Dynasty establish Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory. The challenge to Chinese ownership came from Japanese annexation of the islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War.

TENSIONS are rising in the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands — five tiny islands and three rocks covering a mere 7sq km in the East China Sea.

It is a pity that this is happening especially when Chinese-Japanese economic ties have reached a new level since the end of last year with the two countries agreeing to use their respective currencies in their bilateral trade, instead of the US dollar.

To de-escalate tensions, Japan should make the first move. It was the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the islands from the Kurihara family on Sept 11, 2012 that ignited the present crisis. That decision should be rescinded immediately.

In fact, Japan has been upping the ante on Diaoyu — which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands — for some time now. It will be recalled that on Sept 7, 2010 when a Chinese fishing boat collided accidentally with a Japanese patrol vessel near Diaoyu, the captain and the crew of the Chinese boat were detained by the Japanese Coast Guard for a few days.

Though they were all released in the end, the incident revealed a new toughness on the part of the Japanese. The Chinese have been reacting to this and other such incidents.

What explains this new toughness? Some analysts attribute it partly to the growth of the political right in Japanese politics.

Japanese economic stagnation for more than two decades and China’s success in replacing Japan as the world’s second-most important economy have increased the influence of conservative nationalist forces in the country who are now targeting China.

Impending elections within the ruling Democratic Party and the forthcoming general election have also widened the berth for conservative politics.

It is also not a coincidence that the Japanese right-wing has become more vocal — especially vis-a-vis China — at a time when the United States is seeking to re-assert its presence and its power in the Asia-Pacific region. In the last couple of years, US political and military officials have on a number of occasions underscored the significance of US-Japan security ties.

Even on the Diaoyu dispute, the US government, while professing to remain neutral, has through the Pentagon made it clear that the Japan-US Security Treaty would come into force in the event of a military conflict between Japan and China.

This stance has to be viewed in the larger context of the US’ active military alignment with the Philippines in its recent clash with China over the Huangyan Island in the South China Sea and its support for Vietnam in its long-standing tiff with China over parts of the Spratly Islands and the Paracels.

For both Japan and the US there may also be other reasons why the Diaoyu Islands are important.

In 1968-9, a United Nations agency, it is reported, had discovered potential oil and gas reserves near Diaoyu. The US military, it is not widely known, also uses one of the five islands — Kuba — as a practice range for aircraft bombing.

Whatever the reasons for holding on to Diaoyu, Japan’s claim to ownership is weak. There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory. The books Voyage with a Tail Wind and Record of the Imperial Envoy’s Visit to Ryukyu bear testimony to this.

Even writings by Japanese scholars in the late 19th century acknowledged this fact. The challenge to Chinese ownership of Diaoyu came from Japanese annexation of the Islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War. China under the Ching Dynasty was too weak to fight back and regain lost territory. But annexation through military force does not confer legitimacy upon the act of conquest.

This is why when Japan was defeated in the Second World War the victors who included China and the US recognised that Diaoyu was Chinese territory.

Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this though for administrative purposes Diaoyu was placed under US control as part of its governance over the Ryukyu Islands. The US was then the occupying power in Japan following the latter’s surrender.

However, when China was taken over by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, the US changed its position and began to treat the Islands as part of Japan. The Chinese communist leadership protested vehemently.

In 1971, the US Senate returned the Diaoyu Islands, together with Okinawa, to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Again, the Chinese government in Beijing objected, as did the Taiwan government which also regards the islands as part of China.

Since the normalisation of relations between China and Japan in 1972, both sides have agreed to allow their fishermen to operate in the waters surrounding the islands without resolving the issue of ownership.

Of course, neither China nor Japan has relinquished even an iota of its claim in the last 40 years. Recent incidents have, however, forced this unresolved issue into the open.

Apart from taking the first step by abrogating its purchase of the islands, as we have proposed, Japan should also come to terms with undeniable historical, legal and ethical facts. It must accept the irrefutable reality that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China.

We realise that there are powerful vested interests that will not allow Japan to embrace this truth.

Nonetheless, we should all try to persuade the Japanese government and the Japanese people that it would be in their best interest to do so.

Governments in Asia should convey this message to Japanese elites through quiet diplomacy. Citizen groups throughout the continent should speak up in a firm and courteous manner.

The media too should play its role by laying out the arguments for an amicable resolution of the dispute which respects truth and justice.

Comment by CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

>Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Related posts:

Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia
China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands

China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike back
Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia?

Rightway Technologies

Pages