作者：Sungwoo Park & William Morris  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

China’s Supreme Court announces decision to rehear case of man executed 21 years ago

On Monday, June 6th, China’s highest court made the decision to rehear the case of a man, Nie Shubin, who was executed 21 years ago. The Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) decision came after a year and half long investigation by the Higher Court of Shandong Province which found a lack of conclusive evidence to suggest guilt in Nie’s case.

Nie Shubin was convicted and executed in 1995 for the murder and rape of a woman in Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei Province in North China. In 2005, a different man, Wang Shujin, confessed to the crime that Nie was convicted of. Wang, who also confessed to the rape and murder of three other women in Hebei Province from 1994 through 1995, had his fourth confession dismissed and invalidated by the courts. Prosecutors argued against the validity of Wang’s confession, stating that there were significant contradictions  between the case files and Wang’s statements. While Wang was summarily found guilty of his other convictions and sentenced to death in 2007, his confession to Nie’s case led to a widespread outrage and repeated calls for a retrial. In 2014, the SPC finally ordered the reexamination of Nie’s case.

The investigation by the Shandong court, which was extended four times due to complexities in the case, concluded that there were major inconsistencies during various aspects of the trial and conviction process. Among these inconsistencies included fabrication of Nie’s signature on six different legal documents. It also concluded that the possibility that someone else had committed the crime could not be ruled out, and recommended that the SPC rehear the case. The investigation also looked into the claims of the usage of torture and physical assaults raised previously by Nie’s lawyer, Zhang Jinghe. It ruled out the possibility of torture used by the police to force a confession, stating that Zhang had observed Nie to be of sound mind and body during the trial. Zhang himself, it said, was unable to participate in the investigation as a stroke has rendered him with speech impediments.

The SPC, which agreed with the suggestions in the report, announced that it will establish a retrial panel for Nie’s case and that it would announce any developments to the public. Nie’s mother, who has been fighting for years for a retrial, is said to have broken down in tears upon receiving news of the decision.

With estimated annual executions numbering in the thousands, China is the world’s leader in state-conducted executions. While the number has decreased in recent years as a result of the Supreme People’s Court regaining the authority to review and approve death penalty cases, this number is still over 30 times the United States’ annual executions. The most recent estimate for the U.S. and China is 28 and over a thousand respectively in 2015.  Nie’s case is also not the first execution that has faced public scrutiny. In 1996, an Inner-Mongolian teenager named Huugilt was executed for raping and murdering a woman, a crime that another man later admitted to committing. 27 officials were subsequently penalized for this wrongful conviction, and Huugilt’s family received the equivalent of $200,000 from the Chinese government.

China’s immense execution rate along with its history of wrongfully convicting defendants in capital cases has led the international community to call for increased transparency in China’s execution record. China has very limited press freedom. However, rule of law is an area where Chinese media outlets are very aggressive in reporting misdeeds and uncovering scandals. While judicial independence is still a long way away in China, tighter media scrutiny over cases such as Nie’s and Huugilt’s will subject China’s legal system to more accountability.

The Duihua Foundation has detailed information on the case of Nie Shubing. For more information on Nie Shubin’s case in Chinese, click here.

By WILLIAM MORRIS & SUNGWOO PARK, 10 June 2016

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/6/10

旧文章ID：15743

作者：Alec Nash  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On May 21, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) held a panel discussion to publicize the release of their report on the Chinese Communist Party’s 13th Five Year Plan. The event sought to communicate the findings of the report on the Five Year Plan and put those findings into contexts of ongoing developments in China. CSIS invited Robert Zoellick, former President of the World Bank and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, to give the keynote address for the event and put the Five Year Plan into context of current developments in China.

To Zoellick, the 13th Five Year Plan is part of Beijing’s attempt to deal with an “unparalleled economic transition.” China’s economy is no longer able to maintain growth from the manufacturing-based, export led model that brought the country immense economic success for the last three decades. The Communist Party shows through the Five Year Plan they are cognizant that growth is slowing down, that their financial system is vulnerable to shocks like in July 2015 and January 2016, and that the government must be restructured in order to face these mounting challenges.

The Five Year Plan addresses the need to change from the export-led growth model to a consumer-driven growth model. The leadership is worried of the possibility of falling into a middle-income trap, especially as the GDP growth rate continues to slump. The 13th Five Year Plan aptly stresses the need for stimulating domestic demand, improving the services sector, and increasing production of consumer goods.

At the same time, the Five Year Plan stresses the need for a stronger role of the CCP in the markets. For his part, Zoellick is worried that the forces of the party are inherently opposed to the forces of reform. He believes President Xi Jinping thinks that only with a strong, consolidated Communist Party will China be able to continue to reform and develop.

In spite of China’s mounting challenges, Zoellick does not see China’s recent financial woes as a sign of a coming “hard landing,” rather a bump in the road to decreasing growth. He believes that China today possesses the resources to deal with January’s market disruption. He is more worried about the long-term. Government officials need to restructure the economy to make gains from lending, spending, and employment rather than old loans. More and more Chinese private sector firms are interested in investing abroad. In the United States, Chinese companies committed $15 billion in foreign direct investment, compared to just under $700 million in 2009, as reported by the Rhodium Group.

Ultimately, Zoellick has a vision of a maturing leadership in China. He stressed the fundamental urgency that Chinese leaders have to take towards domestic politics. He stressed that the China of only thirty years ago was a world different than the China of today. Chinese leaders, most of whom are still old enough to remember the turmoil of he Cultural Revolution, intimately know what will happen if they implement policies that hurt economic growth.

By ALEC NASH, 15 June 2016

For more information about the recent forum at CSIS, please visit: Perfecting China, Inc.: The 13th Five Year Plan

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/6/15

旧文章ID：15742

作者：Alec Nash  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

In his annual policy address in January 2016, Hong Kong Chief Executive C.Y. Leung chose to put the “One Belt, One Road” initiative at the forefront of his policy for the year. Mentioning the phrase no less than 48 times in his address, “One Belt, One Road” became the most-mentioned slogan in a Hong Kong Chief Executive’s policy address ever, passing even such slogans as “one-country, two systems.” Chief Executive Leung omitted popular topics closer to home like anti-mainland sentiment, political reform, and the rise of localism. Instead, he echoed mainland sentiment that Hong Kong should participate fully in the New Silk Road. Effectively, he sent a message to Hong Kong people that Hong Kong could no longer go at it alone, that the city’s and the country’s fate had become inextricably linked.

The “One Belt, One Road” initiative, launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013, represents Beijing’s large-scale effort to bolster China’s export capacity throughout Asia. The phrase refers to two separate initiatives led by Beijing meant to revive the Silk Road significant infrastructure investment in Asia. First the “Silk Road Economic Belt” seeks to improve transport infrastructure throughout Central Asia, allowing China to access the European market overland. Second, the “Maritime Silk Road” seeks to open up ports throughout South and Southeast Asia and East Africa and expand trade with countries in those regions. Until this year, discussion of  “One Belt, One Road” was primarily limited to the mainland.

No longer, declared C. Y. Leung in his 2016 policy address. The Chief Executive signaled to Beijing in January that he was ready to orient Hong Kong to reap the benefits of the Belt and Road Initiative. Hong Kong, according to its Chief Executive, can become a “super connector” in the New Silk Road, able to link mainland and foreign businesses due to its advanced professional services industry. The city possesses an aptitude for logistical, legal, and financial services that the mainland lacks. On the other hand, the One Belt, One Road initiative would expand Hong Kong businesses’ access to Central and South Asian markets and would allow Hong Kong businesses to draw from the hefty, $40 billion Silk Road Fund for international projects.

The first step in 2016 to raise awareness of the Belt and Road Initiative among Hong Kong business people was the Belt and Road Summit, held on May 18. The Hong Kong Trade and Development Council, a business association that works to connect Hong Kong firms with international investors, suppliers, and buyers, hosted the Summit. The Summit aimed to introduce international and local businesses to investment and networking opportunities with companies working on projects along the New Silk Road. International trade delegations from several countries, including the United Arab Emirates, and companies seeking investors in their Belt and Road-affiliated projects.

However, the summit’s keynote speaker, Politburo Standing Committee member and National People’s Congress Chairman Zhang Dejiang, upstaged the event itself. Zhang drew a clear line between Hong Kong’s participation in One Belt, One Road and the continued success of “one country, two systems.” “Just like I’m from the northeastern part of China, I love my hometown and my motherland,” he asserted, “but separatism under the camouflage of localism, which is contrary to the original idea of ‘one country, two systems,’ … the public can judge whether that is a blessing or a curse for Hong Kong.” In Beijing’s view, Hong Kong’s continued adherence to “one country, two systems” is an existential issue. The city can only continue to prosper as long as it continues to act as the gateway between China and the world. Beijing’s message is clear: if Hong Kong wants to continue to reap the benefits from its status as a “super connector” between the world and China, it must work to stamp out “separatism under the guise of localism.”

Both Leung’s January address and Zhang’s May speech defied expectations. Chief Executive Leung, expected to address local concerns in January, surprisingly echoed national sentiments on the “New Silk Road.” Chairman Zhang, expected to echo Beijing’s overtures on One Belt, One Road, unpredictably weighed in on local issues. If nothing else, the two leaders have shown that the fates of Hong Kong and Beijing are becoming increasingly intertwined. To conclude in Zhang’s own words, “the public can judge whether that is a blessing or a curse.”

By Alec Nash, June 15, 2016

For more information about the One Belt, One Road, please visit http://beltandroad.hktdc.com/en/index.aspx  

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/6/16

旧文章ID：15741

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On June 9th, 2016, President Obama finally delivered the long awaited endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  Yet that was not the only groundbreaking event of day.  Later that afternoon, Elizabeth Warren formally endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, while simultaneously confirming an interest in becoming Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

Now the question is; will Warren become Clinton’s the Vice Presidential Pick?

There are unavoidable drawbacks to this possibility.  First of all, having two women on a major party ticket may sound alluring at first, but it can eventually prove to be counterproductive.  Furthermore, the fact that Warren was one of the last remaining female Democratic senators to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton may be a setback for Warren’s path to the vice presidency, as her neutrality has essentially allowed voters to fantasize about her possible interest in endorsing Sanders.

However, these hindrances should not ultimately perturb Clinton in her decision-making.  Clinton’s team is known for being extraordinarily rational and appropriate in both presentation and strategy.  Currently, the primary goal of both Clinton and the Democratic Party is to secure the White House, and the previously mentioned drawbacks are not significant enough to become major hurdles.  In another typical election, having two women lead a major political party may not be the wisest of decisions.  However, the fact is that their opponent in this current election has a peculiar interest in denouncing people for their sex or race.  When you have two members of a gender minority run against a candidate with aggressively vicious tactics, it becomes easy to sympathize with the minority.  Although the Clinton campaign may not appreciate Warren’s late endorsement, they will still prioritize maximizing their chances to running a successful campaign. Warren’s liberal progressive views have consistently been extremely popular within the Democratic Party, perhaps even more so than the stances of Senator Sanders.  Clinton may be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, yet the fact remains that many Democratic voters are still unwilling to relinquish their support for Senator Sanders.  Although Sanders will most likely be unsuccessful in obtaining the Democratic presidential nomination, his progressive policies have spurred passionate assent, especially amongst young voters.  Contrarily, Clinton has not yet achieved the same widespread popularity.  A few of her previous unpopular political decisions as well as her connections to Wall Street have contributed to the unfair depiction of her as a “corrupt politician”.   Fortunately, Warren has consistently achieved acceptability and support both within the Democratic Party as well as amidst the general American population.  Her addition to Clinton’s campaign will effectively boost Clinton’s popularity and decrease Trump’s dangerously increasing chances to obtain the presidency.

Furthermore, it is also important to take into consideration the effects of such a decision should Clinton finally obtain the presidency.  America needs a Vice President who has the ability to provide constructive advice to the head of state.  As a favorite of the progressive left, Warren’s liberal ideologies and insightful visions will certainly prove useful to the shaping of America’s future.  It may be time for Warren to take her out of the Senate and into a position where her thoughts may be readily shared with the executive forces of the country.  Another crucial point is the fact that the Vice President is first in the presidential line of succession and hence must be immediately prepared to lead the country.   Similar to Clinton, Warren’s qualifications are also immensely impressive and suited to politics.  Hence, having Warren in this position will not only ensure a successful campaign, but will also become useful in the White House.

If we do see a Clinton-Warren ticket, it will be fascinating to see how the two phenomenal debaters cooperate to combat Trump’s bigotry and discriminatory comments.

By: MARGARET LU, 17 June 2016

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/6/17

旧文章ID：15740

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On June 16, 2016, President Jimmy Carter and Consul General Li Qiangmin of the Chinese Consulate in Houston met in President Carter’s office at The Carter Center to discuss recent events in U.S.-China relations and future collaboration in Africa. CG Li thanked President Carter for being the grandfather of U.S.-China Relations, and President Carter responded by saying that he hopes The Carter Center will continue to fulfill that role.

President Carter discussed with CG Li the Center’s interest in working to establish more areas of U.S.-China collaboration in Africa. In the past, U.S.-China collaboration in Africa has been limited to fighting Ebola in Liberia and Sierra Leone and finalizing a peace agreement in South Sudan. Both President Carter and CG Li see potential for the two countries to work together in a number of locations, but specifically mentioned Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and South Sudan as suitable areas, to name a few.

The 6th FOCAC (Forum on China-Africa Cooperation) held in Johannesburg last year was also discussed. 43 African leaders joined the summit and President Xi Jinping proposed 10 overarching plans for Sino-African cooperation, along with promising a $60 billion development fund to Africa. CG Li stated that the Chinese welcome European and other partners to form multi-lateral cooperation and that the U.S. and China have common goals in Africa.

China’s commitment to peace in the region was also reinforced by the recent appointment of its first special envoy to Syria, Ambassador Xie Xiaoyan. Ambassador Xie is a former ambassador to Iran, Ethiopia, and the African Union.

President Carter and CG Li also took the time to discuss areas causing tension, namely the arbitration case South China Sea and the recent election of Tsai Ing-wen as president of Taiwan.

Dr. Zhang Qianyuan from the University of Texas at Dallas also attended the meeting and gave President Carter a picture he painted of the president.

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/6/22

旧文章ID：15739

作者：Sungwoo Park  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The Orlando attack, carried out by a Muslim individual who had pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State, once again reinvigorated a furious debate in America about its attitude towards its Muslim population. At the center of the controversy was presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Following the initial news of the attacks, Trump tweeted a highly controversial message in which he “appreciated the congrats for being right” on his stance on Islamic terrorism and reinforced the need to “get smart”. He was immediately met with backlash from Republicans and Democrats who condemned him for using the tragedy to advance his political agenda. Yet for millions of his followers, Trump remains a lone but popular, tough voice that offers a possible (while not necessarily politically correct) solution to the seemingly never-ending stream of attacks on the West by Muslim terrorists. Trump has built his campaign by appealing to such voices, and his ‘tough’ plan on radical Islam has been one of the pillars of his surprising victory over other GOP stalwarts. He has repeatedly called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, proposed the surveillance of all mosques, and has pressed for a mandatory registration of Muslims in the U.S.

While Trump’s proposed measures were roundly denounced by American politicians of varying ideological and political leanings in the U.S., let’s take a look at the situation in a country where some of these counter terrorist measures have been put into place. In recent years, China has been the victim of devastating terrorist attacks carried out by individuals with links to radical Islamism. While guns are rare in China – firearms are heavily regulated and largely restricted to government personnel – it hasn’t stopped determined attackers from causing horrific damage. A 2014 knife attack on a railway station in Kunming, the capital of southwest Yunnan province, by perpetrated members of a radical Islamic group left 29 civilians dead and more than 140 injured. A 2015 attack on a coal mine in Xinjiang, China’s westernmost province, left over 50 dead and has been allegedly linked to jihad. Xinjiang has been the site for worst of the violence – there were over 700 casualties in 2013-2014 according to Washington-based Uyghur Human Rights Project. Tensions in the region are driven along ethno-religious lines between the Han and the minority Uyghur communities. The Uighur, who largely practice Sufi Islam and speak their own Turkic-language, have utilized assassinations, bombings, and mass attacks against civilians and government officials alike. In retaliation, the Chinese government has continually ramped up its security forces and policing of the region, promising to “spare no efforts” in cracking down on the “three evil forces of separatism, extremism and terrorism” in Xinjiang.[1]

Unlike the U.S., there are no checks and balances in place in China to prevent the government from adopting harsh measures against a particular ethnic group. For example, in areas of Xinjiang, armed guards demand identification and search through cellphone records at regulated checkpoints.Uighur minors are banned from participating in religious activities, and beards and veils are forbidden under threat of imprisonment. These measures are amplified during the month of Ramadan, a particularly sensitive time for Muslim communities worldwide. Local governments have reportedly banned students, children and civil employees from taking part in fasting during Ramadan and forbidden Muslim restaurants from closing during daylight hours. Other cities have employed 24-hour surveillance of mosques and background checks on worshipers, and residents of at least one prefecture have been required to submit DNA samples and fingerprints in order to apply for certain travel documents.

Critics say that such repressive policies only exacerbate the existing friction, and does not address the underlying socioeconomic divide and systematic discrimination they claim is responsible for driving the violence in the first place. Just like many Americans are support Trump’s proposed measures against the Islamic population as a whole, many Han Chinese are in support of these measures against the whole of the Uyghurs. Many hold lingering resentment of Uyghurs and believe that they are ungrateful recipients of too generous government benefits such as lower requirements for college admission and larger welfare payouts. There is a comparable dynamic that can also be found in the United States – not in Muslim American communities, but in inner-city African-American ghettos. Systematic discrimination, hardline policing, fear and complaints about reverse-discrimination from the majority population – these are all things that resonate within the poorest minority subsets of America’s cities.

Would the policing of religion solve the issue of domestic terrorism in the U.S.? The vast majority of mass shootings in the U.S. are non-religious in nature. Like Xinjiang, the U.S.’s own worst hit neighborhoods suffer from deep socioeconomic inequality and a persisting history of racism. If there is a lesson to be learned here, it should be that violence and conflict stems from poverty as well as intra-societal hate and mistrust.

One may say that the U.S. is winning the war against terrorism since the crusade began after the attack on September 11. In fact, there is evidence that the situation today is far worse than what it was before the tragic attack on the U.S. China has always claimed that it was the paradise for ethnic minorities but the July 15, 2009 in Urumqi was a wake-up call to the Chinese leaders that its policies on how to treat its ethnic minority populations were highly problematic. Leaders in both nations need to 1) look hard and long at its own policy shortcomings and 2) communicate with each other on learning from each other on finding the most effective measure of rooting out terrorism.

By: SUNGWOO PARK

[1] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-03/06/content_14766900.htm

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/5

旧文章ID：15738

作者：Sungwoo Park  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

“What impact would Brexit have on China?” had asked the title of a widely discussed article on the social media site QQ. Below, it showed a picture of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s head, crudely Photoshopped onto the body of Eddard Stark, a character from the popular HBO series Game of Thrones. The fate of Eddard in the show (spoiler alert: decapitation) would soon resemble the fate of Prime Minister Cameron as the stunning results of Britain’s referendum to leave the European Union began filtering in the following day. There would be little sympathy among certain Chinese readers. “If it only were so,” read the most popular comment on the article, “China has France and Germany in Europe. Britain does nothing but cause trouble between Hong Kong and the mainland.” Another comment read, “I wish NATO would crumble”, garnering 15,000 ‘likes’. Yet it was clear by the afternoon of the vote that not everyone shared these sentiments. The Yuan dropped 0.8 percent in Hong Kong and 0.5 percent in Shanghai, hitting its lowest value in five months. And while this slide paled in comparison to other markets (the British pound dropped 10 percent that day), a state press release warned that “China still has to brace itself for long-term fallout from the Brexit.”[1]

The Brexit decision signals an uncertain turn for the economic relations between Britain and China. Just last year, Chinese president Xi Jinping had heralded the ties between the two countries as entering into a ‘golden age’. In 2014, China made up Britain’s 6th largest export destination and 2nd largest origin of import. Chinese investors put in more than 8 billion USD into the U.K. in the same year. During President Xi’s visit to London in October 2015, he and British Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled a “Joint Declaration on Building a Global Comprehensive Strategic Partnership for the 21st century”. It outlined in 29 points a plan to increase cooperation and strengthen Sino-British relations in areas such as trade, research and security. Leading up to the Brexit vote, President Xi cautioned the U.K. against leaving the E.U., a rare gesture as China has normally refrained from commenting on the domestic politics of other nations. These statements were also further reiterated by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and emphasized by individuals such as real estate and entertainment tycoon Wang Jianlin.

In light of such efforts, the referendum results have arrived as a stinging disappointment to the Chinese leadership. “Xi and Cameron’s ‘bromance’ all for nothing after Brexit vote”, read a particularly colloquial title in the Japan Times. Official state media has retained cautious neutrality in their commentary, emphasizing their ‘respect’ for the validity of the decision and China’s unchanged desire for bilateral cooperation. Chinese ‘netizens’, on the other hand, have not shown such restraint in expressing their opinions on the matter. One particularly controversial editorial in the newspaper Global Times decried it as a “lose-lose situation”, commenting that “Europe is not able to resolve the problem it is facing.” Others pointed out the possibilities for China to take advantage of the circumstances. An article by Xu Sitao, chief economist of Deloitte China, argued that while “Brexit is a setback for globalization”, China “[stood] to gain from a weakened Europe” in terms of leverage in bilateral trade deals and the mounting difficulties with the Trans Pacific Partnership. The topic #BrexitReferendum (#英国脱欧公投) on the popular online platform Weibo (新浪微博) gained almost a billion readers, becoming the number one trending topic. A widely circulated comic strip depicted Britain as an angry woman divorcing from her husband (Europe), a ‘not very handsome, but capable young man’. This may have had a hand in producing what is perhaps the most baffling consequence of the Brexit referendum – a music video depicting the romance struggle between various European leaders, set to a Chinese love song in the background. “Little England,” read the description of the video, “if you would want to come back, I will always be here!”

Other Chinese netizens, however, worried about the impact that the demonstration of a successful democratic referendum would have on China’s own struggles for unity. In recent years, calls for greater democracy and independence from the mainland have swelled in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, culminating in massive student-led protests. The Umbrella Revolution and the Sunflower Revolution, as the two protests came to be called, signaled to the outside world a shifting dynamic in the demands of the citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Some Chinese were concerned that the Brexit vote would further encourage such movements, and possibly spark calls for a type of popular referendum of their own. “It’s a no brainer,” wroteone commentator on the popular message board Zhihu, “the naïve Hong Kong teenagers are now really going to push hard for independence.” “Taiwan’s democracy,” wrote another commentator on Weibo, referring to a recent incident in Taiwan in which students pelted Ministry of Education officials with eggs, “and the recent Brexit referendum demonstrates that mob rule cannot be allowed. Populism is not democracy!”

By: SUNGWOO PARK

[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/24/c_135464342.htm

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/6

旧文章ID：15737

作者：Sungwoo Park & William Morris  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The impending verdict date for Philippines v. China, a case that has gone before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in Hague, has got the entire world waiting in anticipation. On July 12th, the PCA will decide if China’s recent actions in the South China Sea are against international law as decided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The creation of the “nine-dash line”, demarcating sovereignty over the region, as well China’s occupation of islands claimed by the Philippines, are the two major potential violations of UNCLOS. China refused to take part in this case, as it does not acknowledge the truth of the Philippines’ claims or the legitimacy of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to arbitrate these matters (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative).

China has repeatedly denied the legitimacy of these legal proceedings, whereas the United States has called on China to conform to international law. Yet for all its urging for international jurisdiction over the case, the United States has refused to ratify the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The ratification measure has repeatedly failed to gain the requisite votes in the U.S. Senate, opposed by those who believe that it will cede U.S. sovereignty to international organizations. It is also worth noting that the U.S. is not a member state of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which holds jurisdiction over cases of serious individual criminality such as genocide and war crimes. It was one of the seven nations to vote against the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 1988 (alongside China). U.S. opposition has cited that joining the ICC would lead to unfair political prosecutions against its soldiers and the dilution of its sovereignty.

It is expected that if the court decides in favor of the Philippines, the United States will call on China to abide by the decision and abide by international law. Chinese government officials have condemned the United States’ role in this arbitration and in the South China Sea in general. This culminated in an article published on July 5th by Xinhua, the official Chinese Communist Party news organization, stating that the South China Sea was peaceful until the United States “poked its nose into it,” and that instead of its “Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific Strategy,” the United States needs to “rebalance its attitude” (Forbes).

Yet China is not the only power that has objected to international bodies interfering in its international activities. In fact, episodes in the United States’ and Russia’s histories strongly resembles the current situation between the Philippines and China. To better understand the present, and how China might react to the PCA’s ruling, we must closely inspect the United State’s history with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unlike the PCA, which is an arbitration tribunal that handles relatively few cases and operates usually behind closed doors, the ICJ is far larger and public organization that operates as a courtroom. The ICJ passes down judgement through elected sitting judges unlike the PCA, which the arbitrators are selected from a pool of potential previously nominated candidates.

In 1986, the United States rejected the authority of the ICJ in denying the charges levied against it by the Nicaraguan government. Nicaragua asserted that “The United States of America is using military force against Nicaragua and intervening in Nicaragua’s internal affairs in violation of Nicaragua’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence and of the most fundamental and universally accepted principles of international law.” Reports came to show that the United States was providing covert training, funding and supplies to the Contra guerrilla group – as well as mining Nicaraguan harbors. The mining would come to stand as an especially outrageous (and disastrous) breach of international law – an operative would later describe it as a “fiasco” – achieving none of its intended objectives and building public fury over the U.S.’s engagement.

The United States argued that its actions were justified as collective self-defense with El Salvador, Costa Rica and Honduras, which it asserted was under attack by Nicaraguan-supported rebel forces. The ICJ rejected this claim, finding the U.S. guilty on 15 counts of breaching international law and a 1956 treaty of friendship between the two countries. These breaches included indirect support of rebel forces, direct attacks on Nicaraguan infrastructure, and illegal overflights over Nicaraguan territory, distribution of CIA manuals on guerilla warfare and the mining of the harbors. It ordered the U.S. to pay reparations to the Nicaraguan government, to be negotiated outside of court. The U.S., responded by refusing to acknowledge the verdict, claiming that the “body was ‘not equipped to judge complex international military issues.”1 It had argued during the ongoing trial that the Court had no jurisdiction in the first place over matters of ongoing armed conflicts. The U.S. had previously always recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ, including a case in 1980 concerning the Iran Hostage Crisis. Then, the court had ruled in favor of the United States, and Iran had refused to acknowledge the verdict. (what is the relationship between ICJ and PCA; what about U.S. refusal to be a member of the ICC—International Criminal Court?)

While the Court’s decision was a serious blow to the reputation of the United States, the ICJ lacked the necessary powers to enforce its judgements. The ICJ, being a body of the United Nations, could have turned to the Security Council to seek out sanctions against the U.S. for its failure to comply. The problem lay in the fact that as a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. could have simply used its veto to block such a measure. Despite seeking an estimated reparations value of $17 billion, the U.S. resisted the international pressure to pay and Nicaragua eventually dropped its claim in 1991.2

The difficulty of enforcing the verdicts in international courts was once again demonstrated recently in 2013. Russian authorities seized the activist Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise and detained its crew and activists on board. As the flag state for the ship, the Netherlands submitted a formal case to the International Tribune for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), a UN tribunal, stating that the ship was outside of Russian territorial waters and hence Russian sovereign rights and jurisdiction. The court ruled that Russia had violated international law for failing to respect the freedom of navigation and ordered for the immediate release of the detainees. Russia responded that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, although it proceeded to release the detainees on bail later that month. In 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in retrospect that Russia had acted in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Russia, a member state of the PCA, did not take part in the arbitration and again refused to recognize its authority and verdict over the incident.

We see that there is a precedent for Philippines v. China, and for the larger power ignoring the authority of international courts. If the court rules in favor of the Philippines, as is expected, what can we expect the reactions of each country to be? While it is impossible to know for sure, it is expected that China will ignore the ruling of the court if it rules on the side of the Philippines. If this happens, the newly elected president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, says that he is willing to negotiate with China. If the China and the Philippines are able to reach a settlement, this will likely cause the Philippines to get closer to entering China’s diplomatic orbit. This in turn will likely raise concerns in the United States that the Philippines, a long time American ally, is drifting away. If, on the other hand, China and the Philippines are unable to settle the matter peacefully, tensions will almost certainly rise tremendously in the South China Sea region. In short, while there is no guarantee of what will the PCA’s ruling will be, nor of what will happen after the ruling, history and precedent suggests that those hoping for an easy, simple resolution to the situation in the South China Sea will almost certainly be disappointed.

By: SUNGWOO PARK & WILLIAM MORRIS

11 July 2016

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/11

旧文章ID：15736

作者：Sungwoo Park  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On Tuesday, July 12th, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at the Hague released its ruling regarding China’s activities in the South China Sea. The verdict was a sweeping victory for the Philippines, which had brought the case to the international court. The tribunal rejected China’s historical territorial claims in the South China Sea, and declared that China had violated international law and the Philippines’ sovereign rights within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). China has long announced its intent to ignore the verdict when it came, and refused to participate in the arbitration process all together. China’s decision to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of international courts at its convenience follows a “well-established precedent by great powers,” wrote Graham Allison, director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Citing the recent arbitration case of Russia’s detainment of the Dutch vessel Arctic Sunrise, the U.K’s unlawful establishment of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Chagos Islands, and the U.S.’s illegal support of Nicaraguan rebels in the 1980s, he argued that “none of the five members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests.”[1] China’s decision to ignore the South China Sea ruling is only the latest in a long series of decisions by powerful countries to ignore international law at their whim.

 The U.S. has steadfastly called for China to adhere and submit to the jurisdiction of international law, despite the fact it that remains one of the only countries to have not ratified the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea. This fact is seen as hypocritical by China, states M. Taylor Fravel, Associate Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It creates a perception in Chinese eyes that U.S. actions are not about upholding international law,” he argued, “but in fact, a much broader geopolitical power, political agenda that the U.S. might have to contain China.”[2] Managing the U.S. response to China’s decision will no doubt prove to be a tricky balancing act. Ruth Wedgewood, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University, predicted a “very cautious” American response. She stated that it remains crucial for the U.S. to maintain the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but also warned that “it’d be bad for both economies to have any prideful claim over who owns the farm to interfere with what has been a very productive economic relationship.”[3] Ben Cardin, the U.S. senator from Maryland, argued that the U.S. should use the South China Sea decision as an impetus to finally ratify the UNCLOS. He states that “Our failure to ratify the treaty also undermines our ability to work with our allies and partners in the South China Sea region.”[4] Ultimately, he argues, the U.S. has crucial stakes in the South China Sea and ratifying the UNCLOS would prove to be an important step in “the development of functional problem-solving architecture and rules-based norms in the Asia-Pacific region, and in its regional diplomacy.”

 Other U.S. experts have regarded the verdict with a mixture of caution and fear for China’s response. Jennifer Harris, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the Hague decision will do little to curb China’s “belligerence”. She states that the U.S. needs to find ways of “raising the costs to China of its growing bellicosity, of reducing asymmetrical economic dependence on China and of building adequate defenses against Chinese economic bullying.” [5] Rather than counterbalancing China through military might, she advocates the need to grow a strong economic alliance in the Asia-Pacific region. Andrew S. Erickson, Professor of Strategy at the U.S. Naval War Institute’s China Maritime Institute, advocated that “all parties concerned must remain vigilant and prevent China from destabilizing a vital yet vulnerable region that remains haunted by history; or, worse still, from grabbing with coercion or force what it could not – and now clearly cannot – obtain legally.”[6] Allen Carlson, Associate Professor at Cornell University’s Department of Government, has written that “it is fair to expect greater Chinese assertiveness” as it prepares to develop a ‘new game plan’ in the South China Sea. He writes that “the real danger of escalation” will come when China’s moves force the hand of the other claimants in the waters, and “drag the U.S. deeper into the conflict there.”[7]

By: SUNGWOO PARK

 [1] http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/of-course-china-like-all-great-powers-will-ignore-an-international-legal-verdict/

[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/07/13/485753054/will-hague-tribunals-south-china-sea-ruling-inflame-u-s-china-tensions

[3] http://www.npr.org/2016/07/12/485740544/chinas-claims-to-south-china-sea-represent-a-fight-over-pride

[4] http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/13/the-south-china-sea-is-the-reason-the-united-states-must-ratify-unclos/

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-harris/south-china-sea-ruling_b_10941176.html?1468414578

[6] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/chinas-claims-south-china-sea-rejected

[7] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/chinas-claims-south-china-sea-rejected

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2018/4/4

旧文章ID：15735

作者：Sungwoo Park  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

“DEATH BY CHINA is right on.”

 The web page is cluttered with various animated graphics and various endorsements. At the top of the page sits a quote from Donald Trump. “This important documentary depicts our problem with China with facts, figures and insight. I urge you to see it.” The endorsement is for Death By China, a 2012 documentary based on a book by the same name. The author is Peter Navarro, a “bestselling author and filmmaker” according to the description on the page, as well as a professor of business at the University of California, Irvine. The documentary (narrated by Martin Sheen) “confronts the… increasingly destructive economic trade relationship with a rapidly rising China.” Early on the film, it is made clear that objectivity is not one of Navarro’s main concerns. In one graphic sequence symbolizing the film’s message, an army knife tagged “Made in China” plunges into the American heartland in slow motion. Blood seeps out from underneath.

 In the midst of a wildly unpredictable election campaign season, Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform on China has remained one of the few emblems of consistency. His belligerent stance on China, particularly regarding what he refers to as its ‘unfair policies’ on trade, manufacturing and currency manipulation. One of his most controversial proposals has been to threaten raising tariffs on Chinese imports by as much as 45%. His promises to regain ‘lost’ American manufacturing jobs has been instrumental in winning support among many working class American voters. Much of Trump’s platform on China echoes the ideas proposed by Navarro – and while his position within the Trump campaign is unclear, there is no doubting his influence on many of Trump’s core policy proposals.

 After graduating from Tufts with a B.A. in 1972, Peter Navarro went on to serve in the Peace Corps in Thailand, an experience which he states first began his ‘fascination’ with China. He went on to receive a Master degree in Public Administration and Ph.D in economics from Harvard University, then joined the staff at the University of California, San Diego, later moving to the Irvine campus. As a professor, he became involved with the growth-management movement in San Diego, gaining local recognition as the founder and chairman of the organization ‘Prevent Los Angelicization Now!’ (PLAN!) PLAN! aggressively pushed for greater limits on the expansion of the city of San Diego and lobbied for environmental protections. Using the reputation that he garnered from his activism, he launched a campaign for the mayor of San Diego in 1992, running against former councilman and county supervisor Susan Golding. The contest took place amidst a period of severe economic recession for the city, and was characterized by bitterness and negativity on both sides. Without previous political experience to rely upon, Navarro staked his campaign on his work in growth-management activism as well as his position as a political outsider. He painted himself as the ‘jobs candidate’, and as an ‘agent of change’, and attacked his experienced opponent for being in the ‘pockets of developers’. He narrowly lost that race.

 Over two decades after his failed mayoral campaign, Navarro is back in the political spotlight. He has appeared on TV numerous times and has written articles in support of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. He denounced a Moody’s analysis of Trump’s economic plan as a ‘hit piece’, gaining widespread publicity in the process. He has argued that Trump is the ‘only candidate’ that understands the seriousness of the threat of China. The similarities of Trump’s campaign to Navarro’s own in 1992 are all too striking; Trump is a candidate embroiled in a bitter and negative race, he paints himself as an outsider to politics and as an ‘agent of change’, he has no previous experience in political office and relies upon recognition from his other activities, he promises to recover lost jobs and restore the economy, and he is running against an experienced opponent that he accuses of being in the pockets of the elite.

 While the majority of Navarro’s past academic research have focused on the economics of energy, he began shifting his focus onto China with the publication of his book, The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought, How They Will Be Won (2006). “China’s breakneck industrialization is placing it on a collision course with the entire world”, reads the official description, “[The Coming China Wars] reveals the urgent, radical decisions that must be made to avoid catastrophe.” Controversial and divisive, The Coming China Wars set the path for Navarro’s entrance into the field of U.S.- China relations.

 “Try to look past the author’s political bias and you’ll find that it really is an in-depth analysis,” wrote one reviewer on Amazon.

“Books with tempting titles such as The Coming China Wars appear to attract a large audience,” commented another, less sympathetic reader, “and thus contribute to a further misinformation of a readership that may lack the basic foundational knowledge to properly assess the message and arguments presented in such books.”

 Navarro’s most prominent work came five years later, along with an even more provocative title. Death by China was released in 2011 and turned into a feature-length documentary film a year later. The film features commentary from a variety of politicians and researchers, spliced in with crude animations that illustrate China’s threat to the United States. The message of the film (and book) is simple: China has been using illegal methods to gain an unfair competitive advantage with the United States, and the U.S. government has been weak in its response to stop them.

 The solution: Stand up to China, stop its currency manipulation, IPO theft, loose environmental standards, slave-like exploitation of its workers and lax safety standards. Once the playing field is even, the jobs will return to the United States and restore its manufacturing sector. The film also delves into discussion of various other topics, such as the totalitarian nature of the Chinese Communist party and its human rights abuses, and concerns about the rising threat of China’s military. But at the heart of the film is the economy, and it is easy to understand why its message is so appealing to certain audiences. It distills the narrative down to a simple duality of good and evil, it provides easy targets for blame, and it promises a simple solution for restoring lost American jobs and prosperity.

 Donald Trump understands the power of this distorted narrative, and he has seized upon it to bludgeon his way towards the Republican nomination. But it is Navarro and others like him that enable a politician like Trump to push forth a twisted version of reality for their own political gain. It is easy to overlook the fact that trade between the U.S. and China have been overall greatly beneficial to both countries, when on an individual level not everyone has felt those benefits. It could also even be easy to brush aside America’s hypocrisy when we decry China’s ‘illegal’ manufacturing subsidies while providing the same to our own agricultural sector. But it is difficult to overlook the viciously antagonistic view of China that persists throughout all of Navarro’s books, documentaries and articles on China. Underlying all his writings is a sense of hysteria and desperation that China must be dealt with, that we must prepare for outbreak of actual state conflict, that extreme measures must be put into place in order to prevent the destruction of America. It is clear from the onset of Death by China that it will not concern itself with maintaining objectivity, and separating the facts from overblown hyperbole in his work becomes a strenuous task. It is also clear that providing evidence for many of his claims is not of top concern. In one instance in Death by China, Navarro infers that China ‘can field’ 1,000 J-20 fighters. The latest report by the Department of Defense[1] suggested that J-20 fighters are still under development. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the fact that China is, or even is remotely considering, building 1,000 J-20 fighters.

 In an election cycle where facts have made way for narrative, the popularity of Navarro and Trump’s ideas is perhaps not so surprising. Such thinking is not only dangerous, but ultimately will prove the most fatal to the same voters that have put their faith in these ideas. ‘Standing up’ to China won’t bring back lost jobs – but it will hurt the working class who rely the most on cheap Chinese goods. Forget the propaganda and fear mongering – on both side. America needs to not see China as a deadly enemy, but a rising power that must be understood properly and is really not all that different from America itself.

 By: SUNGWOO PARK

[1]http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2016%20China%20Military%20Power%20Report.pdf

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/21

旧文章ID：15734

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

When one thinks of the great commander-in-chief of a great country, one usually assumes that their power is but temporary and will die off once it officially expires.  Hence, the public often displays doubts about the dealings of the White House and becomes greatly concerned that the ultimate ambition of the Potus is not to make America great, but instead to advance himself.  However, it is extremely difficult to maintain those beliefs when we realize that the person we judge so rashly never stopped fighting for the betterment of their country, even when he can no longer benefit greatly from such a pursuit.  This statement rings truer for none other than ex-President Jimmy Carter, a leader with one of the greatest post-presidency records on Earth.

It is true that President Carter did not leave the Oval Office with favourable ratings.  In fact, he had previously lost the 1980 re-election in a historic landslide.  Yet President Carter did not simply vanish into the lines of American history in the aftermath.  He would continue to represent America and fight for human rights for the rest of his time.

Carter’s first post-presidency priority was the establishment of a non-profit, non-governmental organization known as the Carter Center.  Carter wanted this platform for the purpose of finding solutions to key problems that plague the human race, focusing specifically on public health issues and conflict resolution.  The Carter Center was then immediately set to work, alleviating these situations through public education and aid distribution.  Carter’s accomplishments in matters of fighting infectious diseases are most impressive.  Over almost three decades of hard work, the Carter Center has been credited with elimination of more than 99% of all cases of the Guinea worm disease.

Carter and his team also proved to be fiercely passionate about human rights issues.  As an avid supporter of democracy with a large respect for the law, Carter was determined to bring these fundamental values to the developing countries that need it most through his election observation program.  Since 1989, the Carter Center has monitored 102 elections in 39 different countries. Furthermore, the Carter Center actively supports human rights defenders, especially those who work in oppressed states or difficult situations.  In fact, Carter and his wife Rosalynn have often personally intervened with heads of states in order to guarantee a peaceful negotiation.  All these accomplishments eventually secured for Carter the 2002 Nobel Prize for Peace.

However, Carter’s extensive post-presidency legacy was not limited to his peacemaking efforts and achievements with disease eradication.  During this time, Carter wrote an impressive number of twenty-one books, covering topics that range from humanitarian work to poetry and religion.  His involvement with writing has strengthened his position as a remarkable global citizen.

Jimmy Carter is truly a living example of Michelle Obama’s inspirational quote: “People won’t remember what other people say about you, but they will remember w hat you do.” It is certainly difficult to try and belittle a man who has defined himself so beautifully through his life’s great work.

By Margaret Lu

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/25

旧文章ID：15733

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

July 26th, 2016 was a historic day for an exciting reason.  On this day, the Democratic Party nominated Hillary Clinton to represent them as their presidential candidate, making history by breaking the highest and toughest glass ceiling America has ever known.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton is not only a fiercely successful politician herself, but is also married to one of the greatest presidents in modern history.  Tonight, Bill Clinton showed us that he is prepared to make the transition from a powerful politician to the man behind the scenes, fully embracing his potential new role as First Gentleman.

“In the spring of 1971, I met a girl.”

With that, President Clinton opened a powerful endorsement speech.  In his speech, Clinton shifted our attention to the softer dimensions of Hillary as a real-life woman, wife, and mother.  Over the years, guided by Republican efforts, Hillary Clinton has often been painted as a cold-blooded, calculating woman and the spitting image of Lady Macbeth.  In this process, she has evolved into an object for public wrath. When Bill Clinton speaks of his enchantment with Hillary Clinton, when Bill tells us how he courted Hillary, when Bill introduces us to Hillary’s lovable family, Hillary Clinton once again becomes a real woman with relatable experiences and feminine characteristics.  More importantly, Bill shows us that Hillary was after all, a woman with incredulous charm and worthy of infatuation.  By describing her as possessing “a sense of strength and self-possession that (he) found magnetic”, Clinton humanizes a woman who has been scrutinized her entire life by the world for her political history.

However, their love story was not the only thing that was in the former president’s script that day.  President Bill Clinton continued to elaborate on Hillary Clinton’s qualifications, including every step of the journey that may soon lead her into the White House.  From implicitly reminding us of her time as a young litigator taking pro bono cases when she could have been digging into the pockets of Wall Street to expressing admiration for Hillary’s accomplishments in her political roles as Secretary of State and New York senator, Bill Clinton shows us that this woman has been living history her entire life and is undoubtedly the most qualified candidate to have ever sought the presidency. He makes the case that Hillary has been fighting for American causes every step of the way and will continue to do so in the White House.  Again, employing speaking techniques similar to those of Michelle Obama, Clinton implies that these promises will most likely not be delivered by the Republican nominee.

Although a man of many remarkable accomplishments himself, President Bill Clinton took care to leave them out of his speech, mentioning his presidency only to strengthen his case for Hillary.  Should Hillary Clinton become President of the United States of America, it seems that Bill Clinton is ready to embrace his role as presidential spouse.  He will most likely not interfere with politics within the Oval Office unless his assistance is seeked specifically, as Hillary will want to create her presidential legacy independently.  Nevertheless, we can be assured that our former President will still be actively engaged on the political stage.  Hillary Clinton had publicly stated that she plans to seek advice from her husband in regards to running the economy, and will also look to President Obama for his opinion.  Hillary Clinton will “put ‘em all to work”.

By Margaret Lu

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/27

旧文章ID：15732

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The opening night of one of the most historic Democratic National Conventions in American history had a controversial diversity of peaks and valleys.  With the previous leak of DNC committee emails that indicated an unfair preference of Hillary Clinton over her competitor during the primaries, Bernie supporters broke out in frustrated outrage during the early moments of the convention, even chanting that it was either “Bernie or Bust” despite Sanders’ desperate pleas for them to be supportive of the Democratic nominee.

Nevertheless, the one impassioned speech that stole the night undoubtedly belonged to our First Lady, Michelle Obama.  Mrs. Obama spoke with incredulous grace and humility, uniting the party that was previously divided by political preferences with love and compassion.  Her speech was so powerful that even the Republican nominee admitted approval, although it would be politically unwise to comment negatively since his wife plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s 2008 DNC speech just last week.

Mrs. Obama’s speech offers the following highlights:

Michelle Obama largely focused her speech on how this presidential election would influence children all across America.  She spoke passionately from the perspective of a mother who wanted to guarantee a brighter future for her children and made an eloquent case on why she trusts Hillary Clinton to be the best upholder of that faith.   She first delivered personal insight on her own ideologies as a mother and how she strives to inspire and guide her children as they become greater women.  Mrs. Obama then extended this concept to include all children of the United States, reminding us that children look up to their role models and how unfortunate it would be if these children cannot even see a certain level of decency in the sole parent of their country.  Mrs. Obama allows us to imply her reference to Donald Trump without ever mentioning his name. Her own delivery choices resonate with this remarkable quotation from her speech: “How we explain that when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to their level.  Our motto is, when they go low, we go high.”

Michelle Obama continued to expand on the reasons behind her endorsement of Hillary Clinton by reminding us of the values that unite the American people and how there is only one candidate who is capable of defending those beliefs.  She urges Democrats and Americans all over the globe to unite and become stronger together.  For many listeners, the most moving moment of the night comes when Michelle Obama says: “So that today, I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.  And I watch my daughters—two beautiful, intelligent, black young women—play with their dogs on the White House lawn.”  With that statement, she reminds us of what the American Dream is truly about and how we must not allow for that hope to be violated.  When she reminds us of the time when Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 presidential nomination and how Hillary did not allow that to prevent her from moving forward and serving her country, she is referencing to the loss of Bernie Sanders and how a single politician’s desires and supporter base should never get in the way of party unification.

Finally, Michelle Obama makes the case for Hillary Clinton by elaborating on the duties and powers of the presidency and how they must never fall into the hands of one who makes whimsical decisions.  She cleverly describes the POTUS as someone who “has the nuclear codes at (their) fingertips” and “the military at (their) command”, and asserts that the commander-in-chief must have the ability to take the great responsibility that comes with that great power.  With a few simple and elegant words, Michelle Obama unveils the ardent danger that is so close to us and pleads that we exercise our democratic rights to prevent that from ever happening.

That night, Michelle Obama has affirmed, once again, her undeniable position as one of the best speakers of our time.  She is truly a presidential spouse with grace, grit, integrity, and timeless beauty.  With her words of courage, she inspires millions of children, including me, to speak out and defend the values that we hold so close to our hearts.  Michelle Obama taught us to be brave against bigotry and cruelty; that we too can earn our places in the world with hard work and honesty.  Michelle Obama not only showed the world what it means to be American, but also what it means to be human.  Mrs. Obama has done a phenomenal job as FLOTUS and it will surely be interesting to see President Bill Clinton follow in these tracks.

By Margaret Lu

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/7/27

旧文章ID：15731