FORUM FOR INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
THE BEACON’s purpose
This website was launched some one-and-a-half decades ago with the aim of presenting articles on international topics that were topical and interesting but also factual and reliable in their content. THE BEACON is intended to be a valuable asset to anyone seeking a balanced view of international issues and concerns; recent international events and international institutions. Now, many years after its initial publication, these aims and intentions remain true to THE BEACON’s purpose.
What has changed?
THE BEACON has not published any new papers or information in the last eight years or so. During that time, the world has moved on through new political dramas; armed conflicts, weather crises and a world-wide pandemic. Or, has it moved on? As the original articles were reviewed for this new website design, it is felt that many of our original articles remain relevant to anyone wanting information or an idea of past events that have lead to the present problems.
Some of the retained articles are informational such as what ‘rule of law’ actually refers to, and when one hears of ‘international law’ is it referring to public or private international law? How is international law enforced? Other original articles are historical such as what happened with the chemical weapons Syria had and did they ever sign the Chemical Weapons Convention? Has Israel ever charged any of their military leaders for war crimes in past wars/conflicts with Hamas?
Personally for The Beacon, the current (and past) Author ran out of time to write or read others’ articles. The Beacon actually disappeared to even the Author’s surprise when the wonderful man hosting it over the years (from New Zealand) closed it down. The new host and IT web designer has now strongly suggested that the time has come for a redesign so here it is (thank you, Dan!).
Basically, there are still things to say so we are starting up once again on a new journey. Please join us as we move forward.
Why The Beacon continues to be Relevant.
As discussed above, many of the articles that remain on THE BEACON’s website were written more than ten years ago. They continue to remain relevant because they provide clarity and insight as to why many issues and problems continue today. They are not new problems or concerns.
These articles and the new ones being written are listed on the ARTICLE list. We will continue to expand the BOOKS section in the future. The last section is the extensive LINKS section. It will be checked regularly to ensure each link is working although a 100% success rate can be elusive.
As a final word, we very much hope that you continue to visit THE BEACON for reliable information and recommendations. We are here solely to present information and clarify issues for everyone who has the curiosity and desire to learn more about the world and what is happening in it.
The View From Here
U.S. AGGRESSION AGAINST CHINA
Several days ago I returned from a trip to Shanghai, China. While I was there, the breaking news was that an American ship, initially reported as an aircraft carrier, was sailing within 12 nautical miles of the Subi Reef, a reef in the Spratly Archipelago in the South China Sea which is close to the Philippines. The action of the United States was reported as “threatening the sovereignty and safety of China and its people.” Not being able to speak or understand Mandarin, I watched the English news channel, CNN. The strong Chinese rhetoric about the United States’ aggression against China was repeated every day I was there. The newscasters always made mention of the U.S. government’s position that under international law it had a right to sail in the South China Sea waters. What the international law was or how it was applied was never discussed by the Chinese commentators.
Some days there were interviews with different individuals from other countries including Russia and Iran who denounced the actions and continued presence of the U.S. naval ship. The deputy editor of China Daily USA, Chen Weihua, wrote that the actions by the U.S. were not just bullying but also ill-advised. He wrote that such actions were “only propelling China to speed up its military modernization so it can’t be coerced by others militarily.” His view was, “Washington has been skillful in using international law as a pretext because it only applies the law to others, not itself.” After several days, I found myself wondering why the United States decided to sail a warship so close to the China coast. What business did it have there? What was the U.S. government thinking of?
During my last day in Shanghai, the specific facts of the situation became clear when I tracked down a Western newspaper, the International New York Times. I finally realized that there was a conflict between China and other Asian countries as to who had the right to own and/or control certain parts of the South China Sea. Over the past decade, China has been creatively building a number of artificial islands over different reefs and other protruding rocks. Some of the artificial islands have military capabilities. It is over these artificial land masses that China has laid claim of certain rights such as fishing, trade, oil and gas rights within the 12-mile territorial zone surrounding each island. This is contrary to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea where it specifically states that any reef or other rock protuberance that is invisible except at low tide is not entitled to a 12-mile territorial zone. China has signed this treaty, agreeing to follow its international regulations.
According to the International New York Times, China currently asserts sovereignty over 90% of the South China Sea through its use of artificial islands and other means. It is in response to the Chinese warnings over the past several years made to planes and ships not to enter the Chinese security areas that the U.S. government came up with the plan to sail one of its ships in what it considers to be international waters. The action by the United States is the strongest indication to date that it will not allow China to assert any territorial ownership or rights where these do not exist.
Last Friday, 30th October 2015, the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague published its decision that it had jurisdiction over a case brought by the Philippines against China disputing Chinese ownership and control of the South China Sea. The Court of Arbitration rejected the Chinese government’s claims that the disputes in the South China Sea were about China’s territorial sovereignty based on indisputable historical rights. After a confrontation with the Filipino Navy in 2012, China erected a barrier across the entrance of the Scarborough Shoal thus taking control of the rich fishing area lying within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Under the Convention of the Law of the Sea, article 56 defines this zone as where the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of inter alia exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources of the waters superadjacent to the seabed up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal boundary. It is hoped that the Arbitration Court can finally address what has been happening in the South China Sea and come up with a viable solution which is fair to all the affected Asian countries.
The End
Articles
Chemical Weapons Convention
THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC’S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS & THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION by Janet Munro-Nelson Posted: 25 September 2014 (Download PDF) Dulce Et Decorum Est …Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! — An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound’ring like a
Uighurs in Guantanamo Bay Prison: Innocents or Terrorists?
by Janet Munro-Nelson Posted 29 January 2010 *Updated 21 September 2014 (Download PDF) [NOTE: This overview of 22 Uighurs in the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Prison was originally written in January 2010. Shortly after, it was amended when any of the imprisoned Uighurs were released. It’s been a long road for these men from 2003 when
“Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (Draft)”
“Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (Draft)”. Prepared by the International Group of Experts at the Invitation of The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. General Editor: Michael N. Schmitt View The Paper Here