Share This

Monday, March 24, 2014

China search plane spots "large objects" related to missing Flight MH370


China search plane spots "large objects"



A Chinese search plane reports it has discovered floating debris that could be related to the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean.

The crew says it spotted two "relatively large" objects and several smaller ones spread over several kilometers. China has diverted its icebreaker ship, Xuelong, toward the location where the debris was spotted. It's expected to arrive on early Tuesday.

China has also asked Australia to send its aircraft to the area. Ten planes are combing the southern Indian Ocean.

Australia said the search area was widened from 59,000 to 68,000 square kilometers.

The expansion came after French satellite revealed "floating debris" in an area north of pictures previously captured by Australian and Chinese satellites. It's the third set of satellite images in a week.

The Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss says the new lead is promising. He cautions that the search in the icy southern Indian Ocean remains difficult, as rain was expected today.

"We still don't even know for certain that the aircraft is even in this area. We're just, I guess, clutching at whatever little piece of information comes along to try and find a place where we might be able to concentrate the efforts," Truss said.

Malaysian authorities have said the black box is expected to run out of power in two weeks, and won't be able to send any signal thereafter.


Related posts:

Investor treaties in trouble

Several countries are reviewing these agreements, prompted by the number of cases brought by foreign companies who claim that changes in government policies affect their future profits.

THE tide is turning against investment treaties that allow foreign investors to take up cases against host governments and claim compensation of up to billions of dollars.

Indonesia has given notice it will terminate its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, according to a statement issued by the Dutch embassy in Jakarta last week.

“The Indonesian Government has also mentioned it intends to terminate all of its 67 bilateral investment treaties,” according to the statement.

It has not been confirmed by Indonesia. But if this is correct, Indonesia joins South Africa, which last year announced it is ending all its BITS.

Several other countries are also reviewing their investment treaties.

This is prompted by increasing numbers of cases being brought against governments by foreign companies who claim that changes in government policies or contracts affect their future profits.

Many countries have been asked to pay large compensations to companies under the treaties.

The biggest claim was against Ecuador, which has to compensate an American oil company US$2.3bil (RM7.6bil) for cancelling a contract.

The system empowering investors to sue governments in an international tribunal, thus bypassing national laws and courts, is a subject of controversy in Malaysia because it is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which the country is negotiating with 11 other countries.

The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is contained in free trade agreements (especially those involving the United States) and also in BITS which countries sign among themselves to protect foreign investors’ rights.

When these treaties containing ISDS were signed, many countries did not know they were opening themselves to legal cases that foreign investors can take up under loosely worded provisions that allow them to win cases where they claim they have not been treated fairly or that their expected revenues have been expropriated.

Indonesia and South Africa are among many countries that faced such cases.

The Indonesian government has been taken to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal based in Washington by a British company, Churchill Mining, which claimed the government violated the United Kingdom-Indonesia BIT when its contract with a local government in East Kalimantan was cancelled.

Reports indicate the company is claiming compensation of US$1bil to US$2bil (RM3.3bil to RM6.6bil) in losses.

This and other cases taken against Indonesia prompted the government to review whether it should retain its many BITS.

South Africa had also been sued by a British mining company which claimed losses after the government introduced policies to boost the economic capacity of the blacks to redress apartheid policies.

India is also reviewing its BITS, after many companies filed cases after the Supreme Court cancelled their 2G mobile communications licences in the wake of a high-profile corruption scandal linked to the granting of the licences.

But it is not only developing countries that are getting disillusioned by the ISDS. Europe is getting cold feet over the investor-state dispute mechanism in the Trans-Atlantic trade agreement (TTIP) it is negotiating with the United States, similar to the mechanism in the TPPA.

Two weeks ago, Germany told the European Commission that the TTIP must not have the investor-state dispute mechanism.

Brigitte Zypries, a junior economy minister, told the German parliament that Berlin was determined to exclude arbitration rights from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal, according to the Financial Times.

“From the perspective of the [German] federal government, US investors in the European Union have sufficient legal protection in the national courts,” she said.

The French trade minister had earlier voiced opposition to ISDS, while a report commissioned by the UK government also pointed out problems with the mechanism.

The European disillusionment has two causes.

ISDS cases are also affecting the countries. Germany has been taken to ICSID by a Swedish company Vattenfall which claimed it suffered over a billion euros in losses resulting from the government’s decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.

And the European public is getting upset over the investment system. Two European organisations last year published a report showing how the international investment arbitration system is monopolised by a few big law firms, how the tribunals are riddled with conflicts of interest and the arbitrary nature of tribunal decisions.

That report caused shock waves not only in the civil society but also among European policy makers.

In January, the European Commission suspended negotiations with the United States on the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, and announced it would hold 90 days of consultations with the public over the issue.

In Australia, the previous government decided it would not have an ISDS clause in its future FTAs and BITS, following a case taken against it by Philip Morris International which claimed loss of profits because of laws requiring only plain packaging on cigarette boxes.

In Malaysia, the ISDS is one of the major controversial issues relating to the TPPA. Many business, professional and public-interest groups want the government to exclude the ISDS as a “red line” in the TPPA negotiations.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had also mentioned investment policy and ISDS as one of the issues (the others being government procurement and state-owned enterprises) in the TTPA that may impinge on national sovereignty, when he was at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit and TPPA Summit in Indonesia last year.

So far, the United States has stuck to its position that ISDS has to be part of the TPPA and TTIP. However, if the emerging European opposition affects the TTIP negotiations, it could affect the TPPA as this would strengthen the position of those opposed to ISDS.

Meanwhile, we can also expect more countries to review their BITS. Developing countries seeking to end their bilateral agreements with European countries can point to the fact that more and more European countries are themselves having second thoughts about the ISDS.

Contributed by  Martin Khor Global Trends The Star/ANN
  • The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:

 1. TPPA negotiations hot up in early 2014
 2. Winds of change blowing in Asia
3. Looming danger on contrast and competition of economic models
4. An eventful week on the TPPA
5. TPP affecting health policies?
6. ASEAN plans world's largest trading bloc in Asia, RCEP ...

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Japan, reverting to its history’s infamy !

The ghosts of Japan’s imperial past have returned to haunt the nation, its government, and the other countries in this region.

IF anyone still doubts the controversies about Japan’s current nationalistic urges, news reports and media commentaries in the region clearly confirm they persist.

Nations sometimes have leaders who shoot themselves in both feet and then promptly stuff them in their mouths. Japan’s current leaders have lately outdone all these others before.

Opinion leaders in the region have recently noted the excesses of right-wing Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government, its various indiscretions, and the reactions to them.

Much in the simmering controversies, notably in South Korea and China, comes courtesy of Abe’s team in Tokyo’s establishment. He, his deputy Taro Aso and some of their appointees have actively stoked the embers of regional contention.

Abe, the nationalist grandson of imprisoned Nobosuke Kishi, a suspected “Class A” war criminal, had briefly served as prime minister before without much controversy.

But by courting contempt this time in trying to rewrite history and defiantly visiting Yasukuni War Shrine honouring war criminals to proclaim that Japan did nothing wrong in World War II, Abe got the trouble he risked getting.

Aso himself is a “veteran” in provoking controversy. As foreign minister before, he was even more defiant and unapologetic than Abe, and has lately called on Japan to learn from Nazi Germany.

Their appointees such as chairman Katsuto Momii and governor Naoki Hyakuta of public broadcaster NHK have likewise made outrageous comments about Imperial Japan’s atrocities.

Momii said the sex slaves that Japanese troops made of Korean women was a common occurrence of any country at war, earning a rebuke from the United States.

Hyakuta championed Imperial Japan, denying that the Nanjing Massacre ever happened.

Abe’s choice of other controversies at the same time included efforts to rewrite the post-war Constitution to make it less conciliatory, revising past apologies for the war, and hardening Japan’s claims to disputed maritime territories.

The result: aggravating relations with South Korea and China. Although China-Japan relations are often said to be fraught because of Japan’s horrific wartime incursions, Tokyo’s relations with Seoul are even worse.

Even at the height of activism against US imperialism decades ago, Japan remained the biggest sore point for Koreans.

Now Abe is even less popular among South Koreans than North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, with two successive Presidents – and conservative ones at that – underscoring this position.

In a Korean press commentary on Thursday, Abe was described as having “become by far the most hated Japanese head of government for Koreans in recent decades”.

With 82% of Koreans convinced that Japan has not atoned for its sordid past, others have called Abe by worse names.

But have Abe and his inner circle learned anything from all this? They have offered retractions and apologies when pressed, but remained firmly set in their views.

Yet it need not be so. It was not like that for many years before.

In the 1990s, NHK invited me to give a seminar to regional news correspondents at its headquarters in Tokyo.

I was then holding a fellowship at a Japanese policy research institute to examine the prospects for regional cooperation, which happened to be a time of some regional ferment.

I introduced South-East Asia’s history and cultures without mentioning the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan, because there was no need to. Yet a young newsman later approached me to say he knew of Japanese war crimes despite all the denials.

A senior NHK staff who shared the taxi with me later explained that the common image of a constantly apologetic Japanese people was a misleading stereotype. Wherever these NHK people have gone today, they do not seem to be represented in its board.

Around that time, “maverick” Japanese historian Saburo Ienaga was entangled with the Japanese government in several court cases over an accurate depiction of Japan’s role during the war.

In Tokyo’s clumsy attempts to whitewash its wartime atrocities, the Education Ministry rejected Ienaga’s school textbooks. As he arrived at the courthouse to take on the authorities, he was cheered by a supportive Japanese public.

The Japanese public has repeatedly been more enlightened and liberal than any nationalistic government or self-proclaimed “liberal” party.

Commentators put this difference down to a flawed and dysfunctional political system, despite a mantle of democracy.

A recent commentary excused Japan in otherwise unfavourable comparisons with a contrite Germany because of “cultural” differences. However, while Germany assists in the international pursuit and prosecution of Nazi war criminals, Japan has the Yasukuni Shrine glorifying such criminals instead.

The commentary added that Germany was different in being offered full membership of a European community.

Actually, Japan was offered both membership and leadership of an East Asian Economic Grouping, when its economy was stronger and China’s ascendancy was still in its infancy, but Tokyo rejected it outright.

It was further said that like Germany, full atonement is best done in groups. But very much unlike Germany, there are groups in Japan that continue to deny wartime atrocities and – like Hyakuta and his ilk – insist that Imperial Japan had done Asia a favour with invasion and occupation.

Hardly anyone who has suffered Japanese wartime occupation would believe that tale. Japanese forces had never invaded North-East or South-East Asia only to grant independence to the countries there.

Among these reactionary and revisionist groups was a far-right party that had organised an international conference in Tokyo to argue these points some two decades ago.

As I entered the hall as an observer, I was swiftly introduced to a war veteran who had proudly published a book to “prove” that the Nanjing Massacre was a myth.

When former Malaysian foreign minister Tun Ghazali Shafie spotted me in the hall, he came over to assure me that everything was under control and that the Malaysian embassy had a staff present to take notes.

I looked around and saw a young Malaysian diplomat trying to make sense of the proceedings.

The organisers had invited foreign speakers like Ghazali to endorse their views, to which he hastened to reply that all he meant was that the region should look to the future together rather than dwell on the problems of the past. They did not seem to take note of the nuances.

Such extremist groups remain active in Japan, and have become even more vocal and visible than before. Observers note that they have lately moved from the margins to the mainstream of Japan’s body politic.

What is the sum total of their impact on Japanese officialdom? How far has their influence strayed beyond Tokyo?

Earlier this month, a Japanese diplomat based in Kuala Lumpur reviewed some of these issues with me in a private discussion.

He was a youngish, liberal-minded officer about the same age as the NHK news correspondent who confided in me in the 1990s.

In the course of our discussion I mentioned that although South Korea and China are often cited as griping about Japan’s militarist past, people in South-East Asia who had also suffered Japanese imperialism feel the same without necessarily announcing it to the world.

He expressed surprise, not knowing before that anyone in this region had suffered anything under Japan during the war.

Tokyo’s history deniers and revisionists seem to have scored some success after all.

Contributed by Behind The Headlines Bunn Nagara, The Star/ANN
  • Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.
  • The views expressed are entirely the writer's own 

Related posts:

4.Japan Prime Minister Abe’s Yasukuni visit deals blow to Japanese-US ties.
5.China slams Japan PM Abe’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos implication: the   Nazis Hitler’s DNA of the East?
6.An utterly unrepentant Japan opening up past wounds derail peace diplomacy 
7. China keeps an eye on Abe as Japan PM seeks to rally support from Asean...