6 ms·

There are two notable points in this piece: 1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free trade agreement, largely shut down fi

There are two notable points in this piece: 1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free trade agreement, largely shut down fishing imports from the country and made it far more difficult for Norwegians to get visas to travel study or work in China. All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government. 2) It took six years for Norway to get normal relations back. After many failed attempts, what they finally had to do was jointly acknowledge the One China Principle and China's core interests and territorial integrity. Beyond Taiwan, this clearly includes the China’s "nine dash line" claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer. There's also various content about interfering with Dalai Lama visits and other topics that are pretty familiar to most Europeans. Update: correction about the Nobel Peace prize thanks to dagw's feedback.

dagw 9y ago
Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a private family, not by the Norwegian government. Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu Xiaobo).
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  Thanks. I hadn't realized it was such a thin technicality. I just updated the comment.
- demonshalo 9y ago
  I thought that prize stopped mattering when Obama got it just because he was black?
  - skate22 9y ago
    Smh
  - rqs 9y ago
    Chinese here. In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning. So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo
    - doktrin 9y ago
      Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is an illustration of the committee's political independence. Unlike Liu Xiaobo's prize, that of Obama was controversial and broadly unpopular within Norway.
      - DRAOBE 9y ago
        Independence and ineptitude.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        KekDemaga 9y ago
        Ignorance is why you are being down voted, the man spent his entire time in office at war if that is deserving of a peace prize I'm not sure what you'd have to do to not deserve one.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        wallace_f 9y ago
        The military, Wall Street, healthcare financial services, and government (size, reach of power), win after every single election. I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.
shaobo 9y ago
It is also worth noting that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is only in the Hague, it is not an UN agency, and not a court in the traditional sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
- ttflee 9y ago
  Permanent Court of Arbitration has a longer history than UN does.
- neom 9y ago
  They arbitrate part of the hague conventions. the hague conventions make up part of international law. It's a court of arbitration, your comparison to the UN is apples to oranges, in fact, the UN isn't really involved in international law setting.
  - shaobo 9y ago
    I am not comparing it to the UN, but how it is referred to in the media is often misleading, especially the "in the Hague" part. Quite a few articles even dropped that bit and just referred to it as an "UN court/tribunal". It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance. And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
    - astebbin 9y ago
      >It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance. You're right that they _would_ do something like that! ;) In fact, they did in this case. I'll explain below. >And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it. Not quite. China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [0], which designates the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague [1] as the default means of dispute resolution between parties. China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty. This court ruled against China on the matter of the Nine-Dash Line [2]. By defying the court's ruling, they defy the UNCLOS, and thus the UN. You're technically right that in the case of the Nine-Dash Line, China did not agree to participate in arbitration. However, arbitration was allowed to proceed without their cooperation according to the rules of the UNCLOS, which China had already signed. Treaty law doesn't only apply when it's convenient. [0] https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration#Interstate_arbitration_based_on_UNCLOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribunal.27s_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribun...
ChuckMcM 9y ago
And the second is the more interesting point, it is the difference between having the US be the most powerful nation on earth and having China in that role. Look to see more of that happening over the next few years.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies. For example, in the early 1990's, just before the First Gulf War, Yemen cast a UN vote against the resolution to invade Iraq. But, Yemen paid a hefty price after the US, Saudi Arabia and other allies retaliated: A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state. https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-costly-vote-yemen-paid-a-high-price-for-1990-security-council-veto.html https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-cos... EDIT: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    > The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies. That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
    - isr 9y ago
      To be more precise, the point is really this: Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it. So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion). While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.
eighthnate 9y ago
> All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government. The nobel committee is set by the norwegian parliament. "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament)." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/committee.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/... And the nobel prizes ( particularly in peace ) has been used by the norwegian government to advance political causes. A prime example being obama being awarded the nobel peace prize before he did anything as president. Regardless of your views on china, the nobel peace prize is a political prize.

dagw 9y ago

Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a private family, not by the Norwegian government. Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu Xiaobo).

whatyoucantsay 9y ago
Thanks. I hadn't realized it was such a thin technicality. I just updated the comment.
demonshalo 9y ago
I thought that prize stopped mattering when Obama got it just because he was black?
- skate22 9y ago
  Smh
- rqs 9y ago
  Chinese here. In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning. So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo
  - doktrin 9y ago
    Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is an illustration of the committee's political independence. Unlike Liu Xiaobo's prize, that of Obama was controversial and broadly unpopular within Norway.
    - DRAOBE 9y ago
      Independence and ineptitude.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Ignorance is why you are being down voted, the man spent his entire time in office at war if that is deserving of a peace prize I'm not sure what you'd have to do to not deserve one.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        wallace_f 9y ago
        The military, Wall Street, healthcare financial services, and government (size, reach of power), win after every single election. I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.

shaobo 9y ago

It is also worth noting that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is only in the Hague, it is not an UN agency, and not a court in the traditional sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

ttflee 9y ago
Permanent Court of Arbitration has a longer history than UN does.
neom 9y ago
They arbitrate part of the hague conventions. the hague conventions make up part of international law. It's a court of arbitration, your comparison to the UN is apples to oranges, in fact, the UN isn't really involved in international law setting.
- shaobo 9y ago
  I am not comparing it to the UN, but how it is referred to in the media is often misleading, especially the "in the Hague" part. Quite a few articles even dropped that bit and just referred to it as an "UN court/tribunal". It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance. And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
  - astebbin 9y ago
    >It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance. You're right that they _would_ do something like that! ;) In fact, they did in this case. I'll explain below. >And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it. Not quite. China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [0], which designates the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague [1] as the default means of dispute resolution between parties. China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty. This court ruled against China on the matter of the Nine-Dash Line [2]. By defying the court's ruling, they defy the UNCLOS, and thus the UN. You're technically right that in the case of the Nine-Dash Line, China did not agree to participate in arbitration. However, arbitration was allowed to proceed without their cooperation according to the rules of the UNCLOS, which China had already signed. Treaty law doesn't only apply when it's convenient. [0] https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration#Interstate_arbitration_based_on_UNCLOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribunal.27s_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribun...

ChuckMcM 9y ago

And the second is the more interesting point, it is the difference between having the US be the most powerful nation on earth and having China in that role. Look to see more of that happening over the next few years.

HillaryBriss 9y ago
The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies. For example, in the early 1990's, just before the First Gulf War, Yemen cast a UN vote against the resolution to invade Iraq. But, Yemen paid a hefty price after the US, Saudi Arabia and other allies retaliated: A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state. https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-costly-vote-yemen-paid-a-high-price-for-1990-security-council-veto.html https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-cos... EDIT: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  > The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies. That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
  - isr 9y ago
    To be more precise, the point is really this: Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it. So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion). While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.

eighthnate 9y ago

> All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government. The nobel committee is set by the norwegian parliament. "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament)." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/committee.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/... And the nobel prizes ( particularly in peace ) has been used by the norwegian government to advance political causes. A prime example being obama being awarded the nobel peace prize before he did anything as president. Regardless of your views on china, the nobel peace prize is a political prize.