Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Tom Hayden In Memorium

A public memorial for Tom Hayden is being planned for Sunday, February 19, at Royce Hall in Los Angeles.  

In lieu of flowers the family suggests donations be made to the Peace and Justice Resource Center, which will aid in the continued promotion and preservation of Tom's good works.

His family asks for privacy at this time and thanks all those who have reached out with condolences.  

Below are public and personal comments that have come to our attention, including links to published responses.  Please send additional links to Personal reflections can be sent to the same address or added via "Post a Comment" below.


From Vietnam

Dear American friends/brothers/sisters and colleagues:

Warmest greetings from the Vietnam-USA Society, Hanoi, Vietnam!

We are all shocked and saddened to learn that Tom Hayden, a well-known progressive American peace-activist/leader and especially a long-time good friend of the Vietnamese people died at the age of 76 on Sunday, October 23rd 2016 in the arms of his loved ones.

With all his work and energy, Tom Hayden had made great contributions to make this world a better place of mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation among nations without war, violation, discrimination and unjust treatments. Tom will be forever living in our hearts and never forgotten.
We at the Vietnam-USA Society (Viet-My Committee before 1991) had many opportunities to host and facilitate the visits together with some American peace-activists and also his loved ones and friends to the North Vietnam during the war (1965, 1967 and 1972) and also several times in recent years of 2008, 2013). He had a receiver of "Medal of Peace and Friendship among Nations", the most valuable award from VUFO in 2008.

We at VUFO, VUS and VPC will send an official letter of condolences to Barbara Williams, all his loved ones and friends soon.

FYI, I now propose (to the VUS/VUFO leaders) holding a memorial ceremony on Friday afternoon, October 28th 2016 in VUFO Headquarters in Hanoi, for colleagues and friends both Vietnamese and Americans and internationals ) to attend to commemorate and pay tribute/homage Tom Hayden. (We hope to have some veteran peace activists of Vietnam as Mdm Nguyen Thi Binh, Mr. Pham Khac Lam, Mr. Tran Minh Quoc, Mr. Trinh Ngoc Thai, Mr. Nguyen Van Huynh…and Ameriican friends as Ms. Lady Borton, Chuck Searcy, and some others American and internationals available in Hanoi to attend)

We avail of this to send the deepest sympathy and condolences to Barbara, Liam, Troy, and his family and relatives and all our colleagues and friends there on such a big loss.

May our mutual great friend and great peace activist Tom Hayden rest in peace in the grace of God! May his loved ones and relatives have enough courage and energy to overcome the sorrow to soon resume a normal life.

Tom Hayden will certainly be with us forever and never forgotten!

With the sincerest condolences,

Bui Van Nghi
VUS Secretary General
The Vietnam-USA Society

From Cuba

Where to begin? What can one say faced with the difficult news of his death?

We worked together, at a distance, on the new edition of “Listen
Yankee! Why Cuba matters”, the outcome, in part, of long conversations
between two old friends, and to an extent in part, a sort of fore
handed memorie.

Because our friendship remained intact since the 1960´s when we each
headed glorious organizations, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
and the Federación Estudiantil Universitaria (FEU).

Our ideals and our struggle united us and above all the headstrong
conviction that a better world was possible and that it was something
worth dedicating one’s life to achieve.

There is so much that must be said about Tom Hayden. The long road
that so often sent him to jail from the days when he marched in the
South to defend the civil rights of black people to finding himself at
the helm of the movement against the Viet Nam war with its seminal
moment at the insurgence of the youth movement in Chicago in 1968. A
road that led him to occupy elective posts never abandoning the dreams
of his youth.

Because for him the 60´s were never a thing of the past and one can
never reference those everlasting years without mentioning him

He had a large body of published works, books, essays, and speeches
from the Port Huron Statement, functional manifesto for SDS, to his
texts on Afro-American rebellion in New Jersey, to his most recent
works, where his solidarity with Cuba was ever present, and where his
struggle for the freedom of the Cuban Five saw no bounds.

His life and his ideas will continue being an inspiration to the new
generations. He was, is and always will be, what the founder of the
FEU in Cuba always wanted, an eternal young rebel.

Until victory onward Tom, comrade in arms, comrade.

Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
(former President of the National Assembly)

From Ireland

Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams has expressed sympathy at the death of US political figure Tom Hayden.

Speaking today Teachta Adams said;

“I heard today of the death of Tom Hayden with sadness and regret.

“Tom was a truly iconic figure who had a profound and lasting influence on the direction of American politics in the 60s and 70s .

“His identification with Ireland and his pride in his Irish roots are well documented particularly in his book Irish on the Inside published in 2001.

“He was a friend and an ally.

“He was outspoken about his support for justice and equality in Ireland and visited the north many times. His writings on Ireland showed his unequivocal solidarity with the efforts to bring about change, something that was at the core of his political work all his life.

“Tom was on the California State legislature from 1982 to 2000, serving as Assembly man and Senator.

“Our deepest sympathies to his family, to his wife Barbara Williams, his sons Troy Garity and Liam, his step daughter Vanessa and to his circle of friends and colleagues world wide.”


Personal Reflections

From Arthur Waskow

Friends, Comrades, Co-workers for the Healing of the World, and Beloveds — 

I opened the NY Times on-line this morning and, glancing over the myriad articles on the Home Page, caught my breath to see 

Tom was one of the best of our gaggle of change-makers. 

I met Tom during the Golden Age of SDS, when Tom and Todd Gitlin, Carol Cohen McEldowney, Paul Booth, Casey Hayden, Alan Haber, Marilyn Salzman Webb, Lee Webb were so brave and so brilliant that they drew me into my first arrests, drew me into fusing the profound intellectual work of Marc Raskin and others of my colleagues at the Institute for Policy Studies with the brilliant and moving — emotionally and spiritually moving — social analysis of the Port Huron Statement, which Tom wrote, and with the radical community organizing and nonviolent street protests that he often led. 

I remember him among the SDS gathering to protest in Washington during the Cuban Missile Crisis when in the face of what seemed a quite likely death of millions in a nuclear war, they came in tears and determination to challenge the insanity. 

I remember him in 1968 in Chicago, semi-disguised for fear of bing picked out and arrested while he was marshaling the antiwar protests at the Democratic National Convention, asking me and a number of other antiwar Convention delegates to make up a thin line standing between Mayor Daley's police and the National Guard on the one hand and the Grant Park demonstrators on the other hand, in the hope that we could prevent a bloody police attack on the crowd in the park by putting our "more respectable” bodies in the way. 

I remember him facing the rabidly hostile Judge Julius Hoffman as one of the defendants in the trial of the Chicago Eight, accused by the US government of fomenting riot in Chicago — and calling to ask me to come testify as an eyewitness that the Grant Park demonstrators were planning nonviolent protests, not a violent riot. 

I remember him writing and speaking on how the best of the radical Irish tradition, one strand of the thought-weave with which he identified, spoke to justice and to caring for the Earth, and his affirmation of what I had been doing in parallel, drawing on Jewish tradition. 

I remember him just a year and a half ago in a moment of laughing together over a cup of coffee before he took up the struggle once again, speaking at the 25th anniversary gathering to celebrate and renew the Vietnam Peace Movement. 

I imagine him now, not resting in peace but once more taking up the struggle in an ambiguous “Heaven” to win more justice, more peace, more healing in the world. 

Tom Hayden, Presente! 

Shalom, salaam, peace, Earth! Arthur 

From Chuck Searcy

I've been thinking about Tom since I heard the news last night.  He was rock-steady, always willing to listen but unwavering in his commitment and his vision.  He was impressively smart and articulate, with a talent for explaining challenges and strategies in ways that made them seem actually achievable. 

A few years ago Tom was in Viet Nam on a short visit, with his wife and son.  The Vietnamese chose the occasion to honor Tom with a Friendship Medal awarded at a small ceremony to which I was invited. The medal was presented by former Vice President Nguyen Thi Binh, in the presence of current and retired officials, some former ambassadors, a few who were part of the negotiating team at the Paris Peace Talks.  

Tom spoke about the early anti-war years and efforts to join together people of good will in Viet Nam and the U.S. to bring about an end to the war.  He became emotional as he reflected on those past experiences, recalling what the people of Viet Nam had suffered through, the shock and horror people around the world felt during the Christmas bombing of 1972.  I looked around the small room and everyone had tears in their eyes.  It was a moving moment.  I understood then the significant impact that people like Tom had brought to bear during those difficult years, and the depth of appreciation from the Vietnamese for the commitment of Tom and so many thousands of Americans and others who were part of the effort. That unity and solidarity bonded us all for a lifetime.  

Tom was tireless, to the very end.  His contributions will be remembered with gratitude and respect. 

From Robert Garcia

I met Tom Hayden when he was running for US Senate in 1976. We have worked arm in arm – on police reform, environmental justice, education, human rights in Guatemala, Cuba, Ireland and the U.S. . . . Tom is a national hero. Tom is one of my heroes.

With civil rights leader Paul Hoffman we wrote an op/ed in the L.A. Times and letter to the U.S. Department of Justice that led to the Ramparts consent decree and 13 years of police reform in the L.A. Police Department.

Tom helped secure state funds to create L.A. State Historic Park and Rio de Los Angeles State Park, leading to the greening of the L.A. River and the green justice movement in California. He lifted up our work on climate justice, securing grant support for us. He introduced us to legislators in Sacramento for quality education including physical education in public schools. He brought us in to help build a successful defense team for Alex Sanchez, pledging his own house for bail, resulting in the federal government dismissing all charges.

When the head of the Irish bar association asked me to introduce them, Tom asked only one question before agreeing:  Is he Catholic? Tom is one of the smartest, most widely read people I have ever known. He would casually mention books, leading to weeks of reading for me to understand what we needed to know in order to act.

People asked "Is that the Tom Hayden on The City Project's Board?" Yes, the Tom Hayden. Tom inspired my sons and generations of others to carry it on. Tom and I stood face to face with death in a way few will ever know; he helped me make it through the dark time. He outed my personal voice by publishing my personal messages to him, teaching me to be human and not hide behind the legal and political. I often took notes during our conversations to try to live up to his words – "If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, you will engender fear. Address the fear."

The struggle continues. The struggle is easier because Tom helps lead the way. Thank you, Tom, with love and peace.

Robert García
Founding Director and Counsel 
The City Project 
1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1660 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Visit our website and blog at 

From Robert J.S. “Bob” Ross

Thinking about Tom

Monday, October 24, 2016

Always at the edge of the possible and the visionary. Ever able to formulate our best hopes and fears into language that elevated and instructed. Baseball fan. Wanting to recast the radical tradition into American idiom and take it out of the hands of sectarians. Willing to be, as our friend Jack Newfield put it, in a prophetic minority, but always looking for the route to majoritarian progress.

It was Tom that found the phrase participatory democracy in another of our friend’s work, Prof. Arnie Kaufman, and made it an anthem. If Carl Oglesby was the one who took the English language and in his eloquence fueled the anti-war movement, it was Tom and others of our cohort who strategized that movement and led it to a kind of victory in the Seventies.

When Tom came back to Ann Arbor after the summer of 1961, impressed with Berkeley’s SLATE political party, he and Ken McEldowney and Andy Hawley initiated VOICE political party. Then, Sharon Jeffrey and I led VOICE into SDS and won seats on the student government. VOICE became SDS’s largest chapter with broadest campus support. It was Tom who had the vision of student political parties as a democratic vehicle for progressive agitation.

When Tom was drafting the Port Huron Statement, Al Haber and I were nominally on the drafting committee with him. He would send us ideas and pieces and reports of what he was reading. We were pretty much the cheering section. When we worked on it at Port Huron’s AFL-CIO camp it was Tom who devised the means of having a democratic discussion of a very large document:  the division of it into debatable bones for which a later drafting committee would finalize the mandated flesh.

In retrospect, amidst all the serious, and as the War wore on, increasingly grim, work there some moments of hilarity. On the night of the big antiwar demonstrations during the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention Tom was concerned that the Chicago Police Department would try to kill him. As the rally in Grant Park ended and demonstrators began the technically forbidden march through downtown, Tom and I got in to the car of a journalist and with his press pass as a passport, got through the police lines and out of the Park. Back on the South Side at my apartment Tom used theatrical glue to put on a false beard and he took the hat I used for fishing together trying to disguise himself. We returned in our magic carpet press car to Michigan Avenue to take up the march. As I recall it in my mind’s eye in his disguise he looked just like Tom Hayden in a silly get-up.

Thinking about our current situation I am reminded that when Tom ran for Senate in California he created an organization called the Campaign for Economic Democracy and used that idea to signify egalitarian policies that would still be relevant. And in his last few years his newsletter kept referring to The Long War – a term he used for the whole disastrous Middle Eastern theatre.

At the beginning of our era and until the end of his life Tom had a prophetic voice. That voice, needed now so very much, will be sorely missed.

From John McAuliff

Tom was probably the first new left person I met when I went to a National Student Association conference for Carleton College prior to the Mississippi Summer Project and Peace Corps.

We worked together most intensely when I was at AFSC and he and Jane Fonda and others were creating the Indochina Peace Campaign.

Our shared passion for Vietnam and Cuba is obvious enough. Less visible to others was Ireland and the unfinished struggle for its unification.

Tom's political insights and sense of strategy were an unusual blend of vision and practicality. If any of us had the potential to emerge as a mainstream national political leader, it was Tom. The fact it did not happen reflected the challenge for the US left to seriously engage with power. Imagine the impact in the US Senate had Tom become a member; likely greater than Paul Wellstone.

McAuliff response to kvetching from the left in comments section of The Nation

Tom took the risk of applying his new left values in the real world.

The impact of his internationalism was appreciated in Vietnam, Cuba and Northern Ireland as can be seen here

Tom was a long time friend and colleague.  I disagreed with his pre-convention endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but respected his goal.

We will miss his vision, his organizing skill and his engagement with our history.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development

From Leaders of United for Peace and Justice

United for Peace and Justice mourns the death of Tom Hayden, a long-time friend and generous supporter of our organization. 

Tom Hayden will be remembered as one of the giants of the movement for peace and social justice in our lifetime. Through all the major struggles of the past decades ? for civil rights, peace, a safe environment annd labor rights- his was a consistent voice on behalf of a wider humanity. 

Throughout his adult life, Tom never shied away from controversy and his ideas about strategy were never predictable. What could be counted upon was his thoughtfulness ? his willingness to look at problems in a coomplex way and to be open to different perspectives. 

Always a person of courage and energy, he remained an inspiration to new generations of activists. 
For United for Peace and Justice, he was a loyal friend---participating in our conferences, working groups and strategy sessions. No matter how busy he might be, when we needed his help, he was there for us. 

We will always value our association with Tom Hayden and forever benefit from his example of principled activism. 

--Leslie Cagan, Rusti Eisenberg, and Gael Murphy and the United for Peace and Justice Coordinating Committee 

Video of Tom addressing UFPJ conference in 2007


New York Times obituary

Los Angeles Times obituary

Article by John Nichols in The Nation 

Article by Steve Wasserman in The Nation

Article by Richard Eskow in

Article by Mike Davis in Los Angeles Review of Books

Op-ed article by Harold Meyerson in Los Angeles Times

Article by Bill Boyarksy in Truthdig

Op-ed article by Marjorie Cohn in Consortium News

Article by Vivian Rothstein in Capital and Main
"How Tom Hayden Helped Change My Life – and the Country – for the Better"

Article in Vietnam's primary newspaper, Lao Dong (in Vietnamese)

Obituary by Peter Dreier in The American Prospect
"Tom Hayden Always Rocked The Boat"

Article by Richard Flacks in In These Times
"Remembering Tom Hayden (1939-2016): My Friend and a Lifelong Change Maker"

Friday, October 21, 2016

50th Commemoration Meeting Notes

Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Report
from the USA Vietnam War 50th Commemoration
held in Washington, DC, Sept 19, 2016

The Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) for the US government and Pentagon Vietnam War 50th Commemoration (VWC) met in Washington, DC, during the afternoon of September 19, 2016.  It was the last public meeting of the FAC for the current fiscal year and it was also its longest meeting as well.  Chaired by former governor and Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, and composed of 16 other members including Morton Dean, former CBS-TV news correspondent, Rocky Bleier, former NFL Pittsburgh Steeler star, and Jan Scruggs, who founded Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund which built the Memorial Wall, the meeting had only two agenda items but met for over 3 hours.

The two agenda items for the meeting were:  (1) report and consideration of the Certificate of Honor Program; and (2) report and voting on 7 recommendations from the Communications Working Group (CWG).  Below is a summary of those deliberations.  The format of the meeting included several staff reporting to the committee, members of the committee discussing those reports and then voting.  About 10 people from the public sat and observed.  Public attenders are not able to speak, nor ask questions.  Comments and questions from the public can be submitted to the staff in writing.
Certificate of Honor Program

In addition to the pins and certificates for all military who served during the Vietnam War era, staff reported to the FAC that they are seeking to identify and “pin” four (4) new special types of badges/lapel pins and certificates and each of those were discussed and presented.  In the past these certificates were given out by a few of the Commemorative Partners but staff is now “rolling” them out on a nationwide basis.  They are:  (1)” former, living American Military POW” and if deceased presented to surviving spouse; (2) “accounted for” for immediate family members listed as missing; (3) “in memory of” for immediate family members who are listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; and (4) “deceased Vietnam Veteran’s surviving spouse” at the time of death a veteran who served in Armed Forces at any time from Nov 1, 1955 to May 15, 1975 (please note this timespan  which was publicly presented for the first time).  These certificates are requested through the over 10,000 Commemorative Partners (CP) across the country.  Of the approximately 9.2 million who served during the time of the Vietnam War, approximately 7 million are still living and thus far about 1.4 million (20%) have been recognized and given pins/certificates.  Examples of recipients from each of the 4 new categories listed here were presented to the FAC through slides and testimonies.  One of those featured a program at the Nixon Library in southern California.   For more details about statistics of certificates and Commemorative Partners please see the Committee’s website at:

CWG Recommendations, Discussions and Decisions (7)

#1 “Highlight various issues and problems facing Vietnam veterans today (e.g., healthcare, lack of housing, disabilities, suicide rates) at Commemorative Partner events.”

This first recommendation generated considerable discussion and finally met with its withdrawal.  Based on feedback from local CP groups as well as prior discussions with the FAC, the CWG proposed for consideration a formal adoption of paying specific attention to the trauma, problems and social concerns which still plague Vietnam Veterans.  There was support for highlighting these issues especially given by Tom Ridge, but in the end it was defeated for two major reasons: (1) that it was outside the Congressional mandate given by Congress which is primarily to thank and honor Vietnam veterans and their families and thus not pay any particular attention to specific problems and crises; and (2) that other federal and state agencies already pay attention to these issues and have resources to provide answers and support, such as Department of Veterans Affairs.  Since this was a  public meeting, the FAC of the VWC wanted to make sure that it went on record to acknowledge that it agrees that these are major issues facing the country and government.  It was interesting to listen to some of the discussion especially around PTSD and how WWII military leaders and soldiers first referred to the Vietnam veterans as “whiners.”  Committee members thought keeping accurate records of suicides was not easy, nor reliable and therefore outside of its parameters, easier not to track.  Later in the meeting this same discussion would repeat and continue itself in another recommendation.

#2 “Strengthen the text and focus of VWC public service announcements (PSA) on the Vietnam veteran issues outlined above.  Focus on the veteran, rather than the Commemoration.  If the story is compelling, TV stations likely will run the PSAs.”

After having dealt with the proposed focus above, this recommendation turned into one of how to get out the message and strengthen media strategies.

A review of previous PSAs was provided and some were launched as early as 2012 and are still running.  The most successful has been “A Moment of Truth: Thank You for Your Service” which has been viewed over 2.3 million times.  One which started in 2014 features actor Sam Elliot, another out this year had Honda’s public support and approval and a new one in production was presented.  This was 7 minutes long and featured prominently at the beginning President Obama thanking soldiers and why it is important to do so.  After this video was shown, a long discussion took place and it was pretty much Morton Dean who said that he thought it was not a good use of resources nor realistic to think that major television stations would use the PSAs.  He said they could be used as background information so that stations and reporters would go out and find their own stories.  And though one member pointed to the importance of social media, most of the discussion centered on tv, radio and print.  Staff did indicate that they were following and creating images for UTube, Twitter and Facebook but there was no other discussion on these means.  One member who belongs to a local Rotary Club said he could use the 7’ video at his meeting.  Staff ended saying that they would keep the footage and make available to local CPs.  It was troubling to hear some of the language of the video especially “how honoring the Vietnam veterans honors the war” and “join the nation as it thanks and honors Vietnam veterans.”  The committee is aware of the division created by the war and puts much effort into not discussing that, rerouting topics so that no real discussion takes place.  It sees itself as a healer for the nation and the soldiers who fought but came home in disgrace.  The healing part is featured.  Why the disgrace is silenced.   Other parts of the communication strategy include a November release of a PSA from the director of the project mainly to traditional media outlets along with social media and on the VWC website.  New marketing ads are being developed along with a new branding initiative.  These were not fully discussed.  Plans for 2017 include promotion of some of the 300 oral histories of Vietnam veterans into 30-90 minute tapes and, again, the primary focus will be to thank and honor veterans and their families.

#3 “Engage the top 2-3 (or 10) CPs that provide VWC the greatest reach and return on investment of time and energy.”

Staff reported that they have been busy in their “reachback” initiative to establish stronger links with the thousands of CPs across the country.  Some of these CPs are actually military contractors and most of the others are affiliated with the DAR and local veterans organizations.  But many of the CPs have not been in touch with the DC office and so staff are contacting them primarily so that the CPs will use commemoration materials, booths, speakers and thereby increase visibility.  In addition, staff want to make sure they have accurate contact information and report activities that they might not be aware of.  Experience reveals that the greatest return on investment comes from major corporations and their national advertising platforms.  Rather than hosting events, corporations assist with the “national voice” for the project.  One exception has been American Airlines which did host 11 separate events through which they honored and thanked 7,500 veterans and produced a PSA from the enhanced effort.  The NFL was again mentioned as an organization through which most members thought more promotion would be possible.  Staff gave the impression that there is much momentum around CPs and especially with multinational corporations.

#4 “Incorporate statistical facts as a backdrop to VWC messaging that include suicide rates among Vietnam veterans, as well as the number who are amputees, disabled, etc.”

It is curious that this subject was raised again and staff explained that they were compiling minutes, notes and interviews from previous meetings and discussions and were putting those into a recommendation for decision.  Some of that discussion took place within their Internal Working Group.  Staff clearly too mentioned that they were well aware of the limits and parameters of the Congressional mandate so perhaps they were trying to be consistent and faithful to prior deliberations.  However, the outcome here was the same as before.  Oddly enough Tom Ridge, who chaired the entire meeting, started this discussion by once again indicating how he thought this was important and by the end of the discussion indicated he thought he knew what the outcome would be and that it would be different than his early formulation.  Ridge was saying that the project’s literature should not be afraid to treat and discuss these issues.  He then suggested that statistics about these conditions could be provided without making them talking points. But, the result was that the focus would remain on thanking and honoring vets and their families.  Some of the discussion centered on the difficulty diagnosing mental issues and whether they were war related.  The vote by the FAC was to withdraw this recommendation which meant to not undertake.  I must admit that as the committee was discussing the impact of the Vietnam War on US soldiers, I kept thinking about the Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian people, their land, their undetonated mines, their continued impact of Agent Orange on future generations.  Not a single word was mentioned.

#5 “Pursue a corporate CP that would be willing to publish and distribute to public and private high schools and colleges a book that highlights ‘The Vietnam War Generation.’”

This was another interesting discussion.  Staff reminded the committee that already under consideration has been a “Table Top Commemoration Book” but that this was still in discussion and no decision has been made.  It was a reminder that if the book proposed here was undertaken, perhaps it could also be the “table top” version.  The discussion then moved to:  is it a book about the war?  or is it a book about the commemoration?  Most thought there were already many books about the war and that the book proposed here should be on the commemoration.  Then the discussion turned to how staff would have to cooperate with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) regarding contracting processes and fair/open competition.  Then one member said, “Look, defense contractors made trillions off the war, they should be able to finance and donate to this project with no problems.”  And, another mentioned that the project would lose control if it proceeded through FAR and that it might be better to organize internally and perhaps with a company which would then produce or publish it.  Mark Franklin stated what he says at every meeting and perhaps for our benefit that “we are not educators” and are not producing lesson plans because this comment came after several mentioned the value of producing educational materials especially because so little about Vietnam is taught in public schools.  As one said, “There are a few paragraphs of garbage about the war and that is all.”  Franklin seems to think that educational materials are narrowly defined as course outlines and bibliographies.  Most of the members I think view almost all of their materials as educational and much of their outreach is directed to schools and colleges.  There were frequent references to academic institutions.  By definition, Franklin can assert that their efforts are not strictly pedagogical but basically there is a lot of support for providing materials to schools and young people as will be seen in another recommendation.  During this topic’s deliberation, the upcoming documentary by Ken Burns was mentioned.  Staff have been in touch with him, no one knew precisely when it would be aired, but staff thought “it will be helpful.”  Morton Dean indicated he was working on a film project as well but no further details were made.  Then the discussion turned to what kind of final report does the project want to make?  To where do all of their documents and resources get placed?  Staff reported that the Library of Congress would be the repository and that the project is required to make a final report as well as financial accounting.  So the book proposal fell into discussion about final reporting.  This question plus the matter of how to finance a book and exactly what its primary focus will be meant that this recommendation was tabled and will come back at a later meeting.

#6 “Pursue the publication of articles highlighting the Commemoration in the NRA magazine.” 

 Because media strategies were already considered, this topic was processed quickly.  In addition, other publications were mentioned such as “Echoes,” official U.S. Army newsletter distributed to 1.15 million subscribers.  Staff mentioned that they have lists of hundreds of professional publications likely read by Vietnam veterans and so they will be contacting those in the coming year.  Among them are:  Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times, Defense News, Armed Forces Journal, Federal Times, Disabled American Veterans and Rolling Thunder.  Some of the discussions at this meeting were to provide direction and priority for next year’s programming.  Though the writing and placing of articles is an ongoing effort, steps will be taken to elevate visibility through more articles in the coming years.  In addition, OpEds were discussed and it was reported that the director submitted OpEd pieces in 2016 to the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, LA Times and Washington Post but there were “no takers.”  An article to “The American Legion” magazine was recently submitted but no reply yet but it has 2.3 million readers.  “DC Military Magazine” is currently interviewing spouses of Vietnam veterans for its November issue.  A 600-word OpEd was published by the “Military Times” on Aug 13, 2016.  Staff hopes publications will be interested in the lives of FAC members since they are by in large Vietnam veterans.

#7   “Pursue two national spokespersons for the Commemoration; one who could connect with the Vietnam veteran, and one who could connect with the younger generation of Americans.” 

Unfortunately I had to leave before this item concluded but staff indicated that they were researching the value of national spokespeople to build VWC’s national voice and no final decision of course has been made.  Plans are underway to refine requirements and identify all legal and financial constraints.  Staff also welcomed the participation of FAC members and also requested their cooperation to identify potential candidates.

This meeting was better attended and the agenda more engaging.  Previous meetings have had fewer members and consisted of staff reporting with less discussion.  There was no opportunity for me to ask anyone about the recent New York Times article which discussed how the website timeline has been problematic and featured interviews of people from our project.

Terry Provance, Sept 21, 2016

For clarifications, questions and comments please contact

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

China's Claims are Legally Unjustified in South China / East Sea

Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea


JULY 12, 2016

A panel in The Hague rejected Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea on Tuesday, in a landmark case.

BEIJING — An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China’s behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis.

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China’s rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.

In its most significant finding, the tribunal rejected China’s argument that it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. That could give the governments of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam more leverage in their own maritime disputes with Beijing.

The tribunal also said that China had violated international law by causing “irreparable harm” to the marine environment, endangering Philippine ships and interfering with Philippine fishing and oil exploration.

“It’s an overwhelming victory. We won on every significant point,” said the Philippines’ chief counsel in the case, Paul S. Reichler.

But while the decision is legally binding, there is no mechanism for enforcing it, and China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, reiterated on Tuesday that it would not abide by it.

Speaking at a meeting with European leaders, President Xi Jinping was defiant, reasserting China’s claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea “since ancient times,” the state-run People’s Daily reported. His remarks echoed a statement from the Foreign Ministry. The tribunal’s decision “is invalid and has no binding force,” the ministry said. “China does not accept or recognize it.”
Continue reading the main story

The foreign secretary of the Philippines, Perfecto Yasay Jr., welcomed the ruling as “significant” and called on “all those concerned to exercise restraint and sobriety.”

The five judges and legal experts on the tribunal ruled unanimously, and the decision was so heavily in favor of the Philippines that there were fears about how the Chinese leadership would react. Many in the region worry that Beijing will accelerate its efforts to assert control over the South China Sea, which includes vital trade routes and fishing waters as well as possible oil and mineral deposits.

“Xi Jinping has lost face here, and it will be difficult for China to do nothing,” said Bonnie S. Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “I expect a very tough reaction from China, since it has lost on almost every point. There is virtually nothing that it has won.”

The Philippines filed its case in 2013, after China seized a reef over which both countries claim sovereignty. There has been speculation that Beijing might respond to the decision by building an artificial island at the reef, Scarborough Shoal, a move that could set off a conflict with the Philippines and its treaty ally, the United States.

The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, said Washington expected China to comply with the ruling. “The world is watching to see if China is really the global power it professes itself to be and the responsible power that it professes itself to be,” he said.

The main issue before the panel was the legality of China’s claim to waters within a “nine-dash line” that appears on official Chinese maps and encircles as much as 90 percent of the South China Sea, an area the size of Mexico. The Philippines had asked the tribunal to find the claim to be in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both China and the Philippines have ratified.

In its decision, the tribunal said any historic rights to the sea that China had previously enjoyed “were extinguished” by the treaty, which lays out rules for drawing zones of control over the world’s oceans based on distances to coastlines. The panel added that while China had used islands in the sea in the past, it had never exercised exclusive authority over the waters.

The panel also concluded that several disputed rocks and reefs in the South China Sea were too small for China to claim control of economic activities in the waters around them. As a result, it found, China was engaged in unlawful behavior in Philippine waters, including activities that had aggravated the dispute.

The tribunal cited China’s construction of a large artificial island on an atoll known as Mischief Reef. China has built a military airstrip, naval berths and sports fields on the island, but the tribunal ruled that it was in Philippine waters.

The judges also said that Beijing had violated international law by causing “severe harm to the coral reef environment” and by failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from harvesting endangered sea turtles and other species “on a substantial scale.”

In an early indication of the regional response, Vietnam — which has fraternal Communist ties to China but also significant territorial disputes with it, including over oil exploration rights — quickly issued a statement endorsing the tribunal’s decision.

China has argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction in the case. Because the sovereignty of reefs and islands in the sea is disputed, Beijing asserted, the tribunal could not decide on competing claims to the surrounding waters. The treaty covers only maritime disputes, not land disputes.

In a tough speech in Washington last week, a former senior Chinese official, Dai Bingguo, said that the findings would amount to no more than “waste paper” and that China would not back down from its activities in the South China Sea even in the face of a fleet of American aircraft carriers.

But with the geopolitical stakes high, Mr. Dai also counseled moderation, saying that the situation in the South China Sea “must cool down.”

The issue could have ramifications for domestic politics in China. Mr. Xi has made defense of maritime claims a central part of the governing Communist Party’s narrative that it has restored the nation to global greatness after long periods of humiliation by bigger powers. Any challenge to that narrative is seen in Beijing as a challenge to the party’s rule.

On Wednesday morning, an escalating propaganda campaign in China against the tribunal reached a new pitch, with all the major news outlets condemning the decision and trumpeting China’s refusal to be back down.

“We do not claim an inch of land that does not belong to us, but we won’t give up any patch that is ours,” said a front-page editorial in The People’s Daily, which ridiculed the tribunal as a “lackey of some outside forces” that would be remembered as a “laughingstock in human history.”

Some Chinese commentators have said in recent days that the leadership may respond with immediate military maneuvers in the South China Sea. “Whether it will be significant or large scale I cannot say,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.

China is hosting the Group of 20 summit meeting in September, a major international forum that it hopes will proceed without the distraction of conflict. But Mr. Shi said he was not sure the government had “that kind of patience” to wait until after the gathering before taking some sort of action.

In a surprising opinion article on the India Today website over the weekend, a professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, Shen Dingli, wrote that Beijing needed to “revise its stance” and “employ a more effective approach” that maintained China’s “long-held ‘smiling’ image.”

The new president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has signaled that he will be more accommodating toward China than was his predecessor, Benigno S. Aquino III.

The case before the tribunal was filed at the initiative of Mr. Aquino, whose term ended June 30. Soon after the case was filed, China began building artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago, much of which is claimed by the Philippines, in a move that many saw as a demonstration of contempt for the international court system.

Experts in international law said that negotiations could be the most positive outcome of the case.

In 1986, some noted, the United States ignored a ruling from the International Court of Justice that declared its mining of the harbors of Nicaragua to be illegal. Washington had not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it still has not.

But the ruling 30 years ago by the judges in The Hague emboldened congressional critics to cut funds for the Reagan administration’s campaign against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and it galvanized countries in Central America to seek a settlement of the conflict.

China is not expected to vacate or dismantle the artificial islands it has built. That makes the legal arguments important, analysts said. “ “The tribunal rulings will move the goal posts towards the Philippines and the smaller countries,” said Markus Gehring, a lecturer in law at Cambridge University.

In Manila, the former foreign secretary, Albert F. del Rosario, who brought the case after years of failed negotiations with China, said the path was now open for a lasting settlement of disputes in the South China Sea.

“The award provides a basis to further talks and cooperation to encompass all parties, including China,” he said.

Follow Jane Perlez on Twitter @JanePerlez.

Yufan Huang contributed research from Beijing. Marlise Simons contributed reporting from Paris.

A version of this article appears in print on July 13, 2016, on page A3 of the New York edition with the headline: Panel Rejects China’s Claims in Sea Dispute. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

Press release from arbitration panel

My comment on line:

Attitudes in Beijing about the South China Sea are reminiscent of the long US perspective on the Caribbean as an American lake.

The Obama Administration seems finally to accept that Cuba has the right to determine its own political and economic system.

The only exception is the pretense that we have a legal right to maintain possession of the Guantanamo base, despite the coercive means that established this classic unequal treaty.  (The US refused to withdraw its occupation forces and allow Cuba to become independent without agreement to give us Guantanamo at a nominal rent.)

Maybe Washington and Beijing could agree to renounce their historic regional hegemonism.  All of their neighbors would be grateful for this act of statesmanship--and the role of the other superpower in bringing it about.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation  and Development

Among the over 200 comments:

The 9-dash map was only presented to the world in 2009 - until then kept under wraps.

Unilateral map drawing has no possible basis for sovereignty claim - if it were, any tin-pot dictator could draw any map he likes.

The ruling is 100% about maritime entitlements - which China was found to have none. The Tribunal does not decide if China should or should not have this or that rock.

Sixty years after Taiwan annexation, Kangxi's map of the island (1720) still showed ONLY the Western side as the Eastern side remained unknown / uncharted.

Emperor Wan-Li approved Matteo Ricci's 1602 world map where Paracels were left out [despite its presence on the gifted 1570 Ortelius Asia map]. Similarly, Kangxi approved of Ferdinand Verbiest's 1674 world map where Paracels were charted but remained UN-NAMED [despite the 1648 Blaeu source map had Paracels charted and named].

Both are consistent with the position that Wan-Li & Kangxi (and the Chinese Empire) were clueless about the SCS [Kangxi's 1720 Atlas did not even have the SCS notation anywhere].

Fabled myths of antiquity are just that.... myths.

China asked the Dutch to move to Taiwan in 1620s as it was considered to be "stateless" and "outside the realm".

CCP history books would have you believe otherwise.

Look up Cordier's Bibliotheca Sinica (1898) and Lowendahl's China Illustrata Nova (2008) with its combined bibliography of > 5,000 books on China and show us one book with China's maritime claim.

Yes, just one !

See comments on Asia Society blog

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Optimistic Assessment that China's Economic Interests are Primary

Beijing’s Master Plan for the South China Sea

China has far greater ambitions for the region than just reclaiming some tiny islands. 
By Feng Zhang

June 23, 2015

In late 2013, Beijing started taking a very different approach to sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea — although few outside China noticed the change. Instead of directly confronting the other regional claimant states, Beijing began the rapid consolidation of, and construction on, the maritime features already under its control. And it did so on a scale and pace befitting China’s impressive engineering prowess.

Much of the outside world only realized this approach in early 2015, after several high-profile U.S. think tanks published high-resolution satellite images showing the extraordinary progress of China’s island construction, including military facilities and runways, which could extend Beijing’s military reach over the contested waters. This worried Southeast Asian countries, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines, because their claims to parts of the South China Sea overlap with China’s, and because they fear Beijing’s island construction threatens their security. It worries Washington as well: In May, the U.S. government vowed to assert freedom of navigation by sending military assets to Chinese-controlled islands in the South China Sea. And in late May, in Singapore, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter called for “an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by all claimants” — in other words, China.
Intriguingly, half a month later, Beijing indicated that it would soon conclude its land reclamation projects in the South China Sea. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs even held a special press conference to deliver that message.

So what happened? Is Beijing changing its strategy in the South China Sea or backing down because of pressure from Washington? Perhaps. A more accurate way of looking at the issue, however, is to see that Beijing believes it has achieved enough in this round of island construction. China, according to Carter, has reclaimed more than 2,000 acres over the last 18 months — a claim that Beijing has not publicly disputed. And the facilities Beijing will continue to build on the new land — including airstrips, ports, and lighthouses — will be sufficient for a wide range of civil and military purposes. (Indeed, Beijing is not denying that those facilities will have “necessary military defense” functions — although it is certainly not emphasizing that aspect of its island construction.)

Beijing’s South China Sea policy actually hasn’t changed much. Reclamation will stop for now, but construction of facilities on the reclaimed land will continue, and Beijing hasn’t changed its claims to the South China Sea.

Nevertheless, this special Ministry of Foreign Affairs announcement requires an explanation, for it is intended to send an important diplomatic signal. China has learned its lesson from negative regional responses to island building in the South China Sea. Not of the dangers of a military showdown with the United States in the area, which it considers a remote possibility, but on how negative regional reactions can harm its larger foreign-policy goals. Specifically, Beijing has learned how land reclamation on the current scale and pace is threatening the policy priority of building a maritime Silk Road through Southeast Asia.

Ever since President Xi Jinping articulated the goals of building a Silk Road economic belt through central Eurasia, and a maritime Silk Road through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, in late 2013, the One Belt, One Road initiative has become something like a grand strategy — integrating the domestic needs of economic restructuring with the international ambitions of expanding China’s diplomatic and economic influence. OBOR encompasses 4.4 billion people, 64 countries, and a combined economic output of $21 trillion — roughly twice the annual gross domestic product of China, or 29 percent of global GDP. This is literally China’s economic diplomacy for half of the world, under one single policy framework. If OBOR is indeed China’s grand strategy — and if it’s really one that Xi takes to heart — then nothing internationally should stand in the way of its execution.

The problem with Beijing’s current South China Sea policy is that it increasingly conflicts with OBOR, because it is damaging China’s relationships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), countries on which the success of the maritime Silk Road depends. As a result of Beijing’s 2012-2013 standoff with Manila over the contested Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal, and the violent tensions provoked with Hanoi by placing an oil rig near the contested Paracel islands in May 2014, China’s relationships with the Philippines and Vietnam are at their lowest points in recent history. Now Beijing’s island construction is making these countries — and Southeast Asia as a whole — feel more threatened.

Yes, all 10 members of ASEAN have joined the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, one of the financial arms of OBOR, thus signaling their desire to partake in its economic opportunities. But the persistence of South China Sea tensions and China’s growing military clout in the region will dispose them to view OBOR in geopolitical terms, not in terms of economic cooperation, which Beijing prefers.

Beijing is realizing that excessive and ongoing tensions in the South China Sea are detrimental to its larger foreign-policy interests. Given the greater ambitions of OBOR, the South China Sea project should not be allowed to hijack or distort the overall direction of Chinese foreign policy.

Beijing is also becoming increasing aware of another pressing need for its South China Sea policy: keeping the region relatively stable so as not to give other countries a pretext for creating troubles in China’s relationship with ASEAN countries. Beijing fears an anti-China alliance formed among the United States, ASEAN, and perhaps also Japan, Australia, and India, in a united opposition to its South China Sea policy. This would doom the maritime leg of OBOR, which must pass through the South China Sea and obtain support from key ASEAN countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. It would also be a huge setback to Chinese security interests in maritime Asia, making its policy options more constrained and costly.

It would be true strategic folly if unrestrained land reclamation serves no significant interests other than to drive ASEAN countries into the arms of the United States. The top priority of Beijing’s South China Sea policy now is to prevent such an anti-China alliance from forming and to support the grand strategy of OBOR in any way possible.

One should also not lose sight of how the June 16 press conference came just before the seventh U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, an annual series of top-level bilateral meetings, being held this year on June 23-24 in Washington, D.C. The meetings are also just three months before the biggest event of Sino-U.S. relations this year — Xi’s state visit to the United States in September. The announcement to conclude land reclamation was in part timed to create a more congenial environment for developing the China-U.S. relationship in the second half of this year. Make no mistake: Despite what China scholar David Lampton has called “a tipping point in U.S.-China relations,” Beijing still wants and values a stable relationship with Washington. Chinese officials are now doing everything possible to make Xi’s visit a success.

And it’s not only the Chinese taking steps to improve the relationship. On June 18, two days after the Chinese announcement, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel tried to tone down tensions in the South China Sea by saying that the United States is determined to avoid military confrontation with China (although he also made it clear that continued construction of facilities on the reclaimed islands will remain a U.S. concern). One feels that a rapprochement between China and the United States on the South China Sea is taking place.

So, although Beijing’s South China Sea policy hasn’t changed much in substance, it has sent a conciliatory and positive signal to the outside world, in effect saying that it will halt its land reclamation in the South China Sea and defuse tensions in the region. What Beijing is not publically saying — but which it sincerely hopes the outside world will understand — is that it expects greater cooperation with OBOR. In other words, the South China Sea reclamation project has ceased to be a core interest of Chinese foreign policy, if, indeed, it ever was.

China Threatens US on South China Sea

Beijing Takes its South China Sea PR Campaign to Washington

By Dan De Luce
July 5, 2016 - 5:07 pm

Beijing Takes its South China Sea PR Campaign to Washington  

Facing a potentially damaging ruling from an international court in its dispute with the Philippines, China has cranked up a public relations offensive to defend its stance in the court of world opinion. The sledgehammer-subtle PR campaign came to Washington on Tuesday, with a former top Chinese official warning that Beijing will reject the tribunal’s authority and cautioning the United States to tread carefully in the contested waters.

Dai Bingguo, former Chinese state councilor, said the tribunal’s ruling on the South China Sea dispute, scheduled to be released next Tuesday, “amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper.”

Speaking at a conference at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dai urged countries not to carry out the court’s decision and warned that his government would not tolerate any further “provocation” from the Philippines. “Otherwise, China would not sit idle,” Dai said.

The former senior diplomat, now chairman of Jinan University, accused the United States of raising tensions with its naval and air patrols in the region and allegedly encouraging Southeast Asian countries to take a more confrontational approach with Beijing.

“We in China would not be intimidated by the U.S. actions, not even if the U.S. sent all 10 aircraft carriers to the South China Sea,” he said. “The risk for the U.S. is that it may be dragged into trouble against its own will and pay an unexpectedly heavy price.”

The Chinese Foreign Ministry promptly posted the full text of Dai’s speech after he delivered it.

The speech, which repeated Beijing’s frequent talking points on the issue, was the latest salvo in China’s PR blitz on the South China Sea, where it has built up an array of artificial islands through vast dredging operations in recent years. Beijing claims that up to 60 countries have endorsed its view of the case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. But the Wall Street Journal found the charm offensive has mostly fizzled.

Only eight countries have issued public statements backing up China on the issue, and a number of governments denied Beijing’s claims of support, the Journal reported. The countries backing China are not exactly maritime powers in Southeast Asia: Afghanistan, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, Togo, Vanuatu, and Lesotho.

The United States and most governments in the region have called on both sides to abide by the court’s decision, but the tribunal has no way to enforce its writ.

The Philippines took its complaint to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013 after a series of confrontations with China around the disputed Scarborough Shoal off its coast. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which China has ratified, provides for the tribunal as a way of settling maritime disagreements. Manila, like other countries, has questioned China’s far-reaching claims to the South China Sea, contested its claims that various reefs, atolls, and rocks qualify as islands, and argued that Beijing’s tough tactics toward Philippine fishing boats and Coast Guard vessels violate international law.

 It’s unclear how China will react to the court’s decision when it comes, but Dai’s remarks in Washington will feed speculation that Beijing might decide to launch dredging work around Scarborough Shoal. Such a move would ramp up tensions and possibly trigger a confrontation with Manila, which could then turn to the United States for military assistance, experts say.

The newly elected president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, said earlier Tuesday that his country would be ready to hold talks with China and avoid conflict after The Hague court issues its verdict.

“When it’s favorable to us, let’s talk,” he said. “We are not prepared to go to war; ‘war’ is a dirty word.”

China, which claims most of the South China Sea, indicated it would be open to starting negotiations with Manila as long as the Philippines ignores the court ruling.

Along with its public relations efforts, China is flexing its naval power. On Tuesday it launched a week of military exercises around the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

Photo credit: MIKHAIL JAPARIDZE/TASS via Getty Images

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Asia Society Interviews Bill Hayton on China's Humiliation Factor

How Historical 'Humiliation' Drives China's Maritime Claims

 June 16th, 2016 by Eric Fish

In coming weeks, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague is expected to deliver its decision in a case brought by the Philippines to settle contested island claims with China. The case comes as China has taken increasingly bold actions in recent years to assert maritime claims in the South China Sea disputed by Southeast Asian nations — actions including the construction of island bases for military purposes, and confronting foreign ships and aircraft that travel in the region.

China’s claims reach deep into the South China Sea. On maps of the area, Beijing has demarcated what’s known as the “nine-dash line” (pictured in green in the below map), a boundary that brushes up near the Vietnamese, Philippine, Bruneian, and Malaysian coasts. China hasn’t specified exactly what privileges it’s entitled to under the nine-dash line, but asserts “historic rights” over the area. This position has encountered stern opposition from rival claimants and the United States for violating freedom of navigation tenets outlined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China and all other parties (but not the U.S.) are signatories. China has expressed that it will not abide by the outcome of the Hague arbitration case.

In 2014, BBC journalist Bill Hayton, formerly based in Southeast Asia, published the book The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia, which gives historical and contemporary context to the disputes in the region. In an interview with Asia Blog, Hayton discussed the thinking behind China’s claims, and how Beijing might be rethinking part of its strategy in enforcing them.

Why does China care so much about these tiny uninhabited islands in the South China Sea?

I think there are different parts of the Chinese state and Communist Party that have different motives, but they all sort of work together toward the same end. The state-owned oil companies are interested in the oil and the fishing companies and coastal provinces are interested in maximizing their fish catch.

Then there are various strategic imperatives. I think they are concerned about the security of the coastal cities and would like a kind of buffer zone around them. They're concerned about the safety of supply routes. And I think another very important factor is the likelihood that the Chinese nuclear submarines might want to hide in the South China Sea, so their Navy wants a “bastion” to keep out potential adversaries and their anti-submarine warfare equipment. But that's not the whole story.

I think everything is predicated on a sense of ownership — that since the 1930s really, China’s elite have convinced themselves and the population that they are the only rightful owners of the features in the sea. Along the way, that's gotten twisted into an idea that they are, to some extent, the rightful owners of the waters within the “nine-dash line.” What I've tried to do in my research is show that this is not some ancient claim, but was the response to things that happened in the 20th century.

No Chinese official ever went to the Spratly Islands before December 12, 1946, as far as we can tell. They were in the Paracel Islands as early as 1907, and then stuck a flag in at least some of the islands in 1909. But the Spratlys — there was no interest by any Chinese officials in administering or occupying those islands until they got there in the 1940s. The nine-dash line was drawn back in 1947 and it was clearly a cartographic convenience — it didn't have any historical meaning whatsoever, but it's now sort of become an article of faith. In terms of a claim to historic rights in the waters within the nine-dash line, I would say that probably only appeared in the mid-to-late 1990s. So these are not ancient claims by any means; they're relatively modern.

A survey conducted in 2013 found that 83 percent of people in China see South China Sea disputes as a continuation of the “Century of Humiliation” (1840-1949), even though none of the South China Sea countries contesting China’s claims were transgressors during that period. Why do you think that is?

There is a sense that emerges out of the chaos of early 20th century China that the country was stripped of its rights and lands by foreign powers. There’s this whole genre of maps of “national humiliation” that were published in the 1920s and 1930s to show the population how much land had been stolen by Japan, France, Britain, and other countries. Some of these maps included great lines that went huge distances — as far as Iran and Afghanistan and the whole of Southeast Asia.

My thought is that during the rest of the 20th century, with land boundaries, there were powers that pushed back, so China was obliged to make agreements with those countries and settle the land disputes. But on the sea boundaries, there was no pressure to reach a deal and no one pushing back constantly. The dream that these little islands are rightfully China's was never challenged.

There’s a narrative that the Century of Humiliation won't be complete — certainly until Taiwan is returned to the motherland — and the problem is that these little tiny specks could be put into the same category as Taiwan. China has already regained control of Hong Kong and Macau, and if one starts to see it put the Spratlys in the same category as Taiwan, then we have a problem, because there's a real mismatch between the Chinese sense of entitlement and the historical evidence of a shared sea. It's never been an exclusively Chinese sea or exclusively anybody's sea. It's always been a shared sea, and that's really what I've tried to argue. When you look at the history as neutrally as possible, it's the shared history that's the most significant feature, and that's what it should be again.

China’s actions in the South China Sea appear to be pushing a lot of its neighbors further into the arms of the United States. For instance, the U.S. recently lifted an arms embargo on Vietnam that’s been in place since the end of the Vietnam War. Do you think this is making China reassess its strategy at all?

China has said it isn’t going to withdraw from any of the bases that it has built, but there has been a dialing down of confrontation in general in the past two years. Two years ago, we had Vietnamese and Chinese coast guard vessels ramming into one another out at sea, and we've seen nothing like that since.

Another thing to point out is that China hasn’t attempted to drill for oil in any disputed areas. They've kept their actions very much on their side of any kind of notional medium lines. Despite the rhetoric, one is seeing a slight moderation in China's behavior. With the exception of these recent fishing incidents, and of course the enormous island building, there has been very little for other countries to actually complain about in terms of new moves pushing people back.

This may simply be the calm before the storm. Maybe once they finish the bases on these artificial islands, China may make some dramatic move. But it might also be that it’s gotten to a point where they've understood that their actions are provoking a reaction, and now they're reining themselves in. I have no inside knowledge of this, but there's a recent article by Zack Cooper and Jake Douglas that argues that it did look as if China was preparing to build on Scarborough Shoal but was deterred by the U.S. deploying A-10 aircraft to the Philippines and giving some fairly strong diplomatic warnings. That’s not to say they won't try again in the future, or that they are going to give up their claims to Scarborough Shoal. But maybe there is a sort of retrenchment or rethink on the Chinese side.

Recently at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo said in reference to South China Sea disputes: “We do not make trouble, but we have no fear of trouble.” Do you think that second part is true? Is China really prepared to engage in armed conflict over these islands?

I see these rather hawkish statements as a return to that kind of "public diplomacy" that we saw two to three years ago when you had pundits on TV and uniformed political commissars from the army saying blood-curdling things about "killing the chicken to scare the monkey" or "when those oil fields are towers of flame, who will be sorry?" and "The South China Sea will resound to the sound of cannon shots." All of these bellicose statements were coming out, but they seem to be clearly intended to intimidate and give the impression that China is prepared to use force, when I don't think it was ever intending to actually do that. It was a way of trying to scare people.

I would put the admiral's comments in the same category — he's trying to indicate resolve to the U.S. and he's trying to suggest that China can impose costs on the U.S. It's the classic phrase: "To win without fighting." But I don't think it's going to be taken seriously because I imagine the U.S. navy still thinks it can impose severe costs on the Chinese navy if it ever came to something. But it's in no one's interests to actually stir up a fight. The consequences would be so awful.

Is there anything you think is commonly misunderstood about the South China Sea disputes?

A lot of people don't realize that of the seven islands on which China has recently built, only the construction is new: China has actually occupied the reefs since 1988, or in one case 1994. So although the bases are new, China hasn't actually occupied any new territory since 1994. People would say “Well, what about Scarborough Shoal?” But I would say that they haven't actually physically occupied it, they've blocked access to it. Maybe they would like to build on it, but they haven't.

And I think people often think of this as a rational fight over resources, but I think one has to insert the whole Chinese view of history in there. If their view of history is that “this is all ours,” then UNCLOS (The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) is no longer a neutral tool to arbitrate disputes, but is a political weapon wielded against China, and that's clearly how they're approaching the Hague tribunal arbitration at the moment in terms of what they're saying about it. So I think everyone has to understand the Chinese perspective, but at the same time critique it from a position of evidence and assert over and over again that China has never been the exclusive owner of the South China Sea, regardless of what it says in Chinese textbooks. It's always been a shared space.

See Asia Society's complete past coverage of the South China Sea

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Conflicting US and China Views on Sea

U.S. and Beijing Offer Competing Views on South China Sea

JUNE 7, 2016

  By REUTERS AND THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date June 7, 2016.   Photo by Damir Sagolj/Reuters.  Watch in Times Video »

BEIJING — Secretary of State John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart laid out diverging positions regarding the South China Sea on Tuesday, indicating that annual talks between the United States and China had done little to bridge the differences over what has become one of the most volatile issues in their relationship.

In Beijing, a senior American official also revealed that President Obama had warned President Xi Jinping of China during a meeting in March about the maritime friction and about Washington’s obligations to a regional ally, the Philippines.

On Tuesday, at the end of what is called the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Mr. Kerry praised the talks as an “essential mechanism” to air differences and nurture cooperation.

But comments both by Mr. Kerry and by State Councilor Yang Jiechi of China suggested that their governments remained far apart on the continuing disputes in the South China Sea. China has laid claim to many islands and outcrops across the sea that are also claimed by Southeast Asian countries, notably the Philippines and Vietnam.

“I reiterated America’s fundamental support for negotiations, and a peaceful resolution based on the rule of law, as well as, obviously, our concern about any unilateral steps by anyone, whichever country, to alter the status quo,” Mr. Kerry said during a joint appearance with Chinese officials in the Great Hall of the People in the heart of Beijing.

After Mr. Kerry spoke, Mr. Yang, who steers Chinese foreign policy and is senior to the foreign minister, said China remained adamantly opposed to an arbitration case brought by the Philippines to assert its claims in the sea.

A court in The Hague is expected to deliver its decision in the case soon, but Beijing has said it will not accept the result.

“This has not changed and will not change,” Mr. Yang said of China’s opposition to the case. He repeated China’s position that it is willing to negotiate over the disputes, but only with each individual country holding a rival claim, rather than collectively.
Continue reading the main story  

“The islands of the South China Sea have been Chinese territory since antiquity,” Mr. Yang said. “China has every right to uphold its territorial rights and legitimate maritime rights and interests.”

The Obama administration has urged China to negotiate with Southeast Asian nations collectively to solve the disputes, and it has warned Beijing against its energetic development of reefs and outcrops into artificial islands with military facilities.

The United States  recently sent military ships and planes near some of those islands, to make the point that it would insist on freedom of navigation in the area, and Beijing bristled at the gesture.

This Strategic and Economic Dialogue was the last for the Obama administration, and there is uncertainty about how much importance the next president might give to the annual talks. But Chinese and American officials said there was value in discussing contentious issues face to face, even if no solution was in sight.

The South China Sea issue came up early in the meetings, when the United States warned China against any action in the waterway involving American treaty obligations to the Philippines, a senior State Department official said.

The warning was a reiteration of what Mr. Obama told Mr. Xi during their meeting in Washington in March, the official said.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with diplomatic custom. On Sunday, before the formal start of the talks, Chinese and American officials, including some uniformed military officers from both sides, talked about security matters. Zhang Yesui, China’s executive vice foreign minister, and Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, led the delegations.

“The islands of the South
China Sea have been Chinese
territory since antiquity.”

State Councilor Yang Jiechi of China

The Philippines has long claimed Scarborough Shoal, an outcrop off its western coast that was once used as a firing range by the United States military. In 2012, China took over the shoal by expelling Philippine fishermen and deploying a patrol of coast guard vessels to prevent the fishermen’s returning.

Scarborough Shoal is the largest outcrop in the dispute between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. The United States, which now has access to five military bases in the Philippines, recently flew a Navy plane over the shoal in a demonstration to China of American concerns. The United States and the Philippines also recently conducted joint patrols in the waterway.

Since China began building artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago near the Scarborough Shoal, former military officials have hinted that Beijing would start to build the shoal into a more permanent platform able to accommodate military installations.

The security session on Sunday also included discussion of an episode last month involving two Chinese fighter jets that flew dangerously close to an EP-3 American spy plane in international airspace off the coast of Hainan, the southernmost province of China, the senior State Department official said.

The Chinese aircraft came as close as 50 feet to the American plane, the Pentagon said at the time. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing denied that the Chinese had flown too close and described the encounter as normal.

It was unclear whether China’s senior military leaders had ordered the two jets to get close to the American plane or whether the pilots were acting independently and trying to show off their flight skills.

Also discussed at the meeting were human rights and the status of foreign nongovernmental organizations in China. The Obama administration has sharply criticized a new Chinese law aimed at controlling and limiting the work of such groups on issues including rights for migrant workers, climate change and the rule of law. The American Chamber of Commerce in China has expressed disappointment with the law, saying that it would harm the companies it works with.

The law, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, requires foreign groups to register with the police, who will be empowered to examine all aspects of their operations. It also mandates that the groups find official Chinese partners.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Yang, the state councilor, said the organizations’ activities would not be obstructed if the groups observed China’s laws.

At a news conference at his hotel after meeting with Mr. Xi, Mr. Kerry said that he was reassured by the Chinese president’s explanations of the law.

The United States “forcefully” presented its objections to the law, he said, adding, “We have to show some patience.”

“What I heard directly from President Xi, actually, was that China intends to remain open, stay open, to open up even more than it is today,” Mr. Kerry said, “and that it does not see these laws are going to be applied in any way whatsoever that affects their ability to open up and to do business.”

He said he found it “not insignificant that the president of the country” spoke directly about the problem. “Now the question is, is that in fact what happens?”

Follow Jane Perlez @JanePerlez and Chris Buckley @ChuBailiang on Twitter.