America, Britain and Australia Facilitated Chinese Massacre 1965

International People’s Tribunal (IPT) at The Hague has ruled in July 2016 that Australia, the United States and the UK were complicit in facilitating the massacre by using propaganda to manipulate international opinion in favour of the Indonesian army in 1965.

The ruling is non-binding and carries no punitive consequences.

Reportedly, some 400,00 to 500,000 ethnic Chinese and “Leftists” were killed in 1965 by the Indonesian military regime backed by the US, the UK and Australia governments as part of their cold war campaign against Russia and China.

The Australian Coalition government has rejected the ruling, claiming the International People’s Tribunal has no legal authority.

Earlier, Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled that China has no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea and China’s activity in the area has breached the Philippines’ sovereign rights.

The ruling is non-binding and carries no punitive consequences.

The Chinese government rejected the ruling, claiming the Permanent Court of Arbitration has no legal authority. The United Nation declared it has nothing to do with the Arbitration which just rented a few rooms in the same building that the UN’s International Court of Justice locates. Cambodian President Hun Sen revealed he was urged by a Japanese diplomat to support the ruling before the ruling was made.

While Australia’s Coalition government rejected a non-binding ruling against Australia, it urged China to accept a non-binding ruling against China.

References:
time.com
sbs.com.au
abc.net.au
mondialisation.ca
tribunal1965.org
restlessbeings.herokuapp.com

COMMENTS FROM GOOGLE PLUS

23 July 2016

Malcolm Schosha
If you mean The Russell Tribunal, also known as the International War Crimes Tribunal or Russell-Sartre Tribunal, it is more an unintentional parody of a court than a true court of justice. That is not to say that the US has no guilt for deaths of those 500,000 ethnic Chinese Indonesians.

But all large nations, and many small nations too, share such guilt. Unfortunately, in practice, there is only one internal law: The Big Ones Eat the Little Ones. It was hoped that the United Nations would change that, but it has not.

All Things Chinese
That’s right, both are parody trials, worth as much attention as a newspaper editorial, but no more, although the Permanent Court of Arbitration may involve other issues, similar to paid opinion, which actually constitutes corruption.

But the funny thing is Julie Bishop, Australia’s Foreign Minister proclaimed China risks irreparable damage to its reputation if it ignores the parody court’s ruling on a territorial dispute.

Then why she risks irreparable damage to Australia’s reputation by ignoring the parody court’s ruling on a humanitarian atrocity?

I agree that in today’s world, there is only one international law: “The Big Ones Eat the Little Ones,” because we are still in a jungle world and yet to be civilised.

I fully understand in such a world climate, a small nation, with historical scar inflicted by the Japanese army in the WWII and consistent fear of invasion (real or imaginary) from Indonesia, is keen to seek a liaison with the most powerful guy on the earth. And from time to time, the little guy may need to do some dirty jobs for the big guy as an exchange for protection.

Which is exactly what Australia’s Coalition government seems to do. Remember who jumped out first to point a finger at its big brother’s arch-rival Russia and accused it of being the mastermind behind the down of a Malaysia airline long before the information from the black box was extracted? From time to time, the Coalition’s foreign minister appears more like a spokeswoman of the White House than the minister of Australia.

I can comprehend why Australia under the Coalition government behaves like this, despite I appreciate integrity much more.

But I just wonder, while so doing, from where some Coalition politicians’ sturdy confidence that they perche loftily on the moral summit comes?

I have not yet mentioned Australia’s role in a resource dispute with a smaller, weaker and newer nation, namely East Timor. Which is quite disheartening…

Malcolm Schosha
The Permanent Court of Arbitration seems to have a good reputation, but it

is clear that the Chinese government does not like the ruling.

All Things Chinese
We are not here talking about the rulings but the two parody courts and Australian Coalition government’s double standards towards the two court rulings.

I just wish some Australian politicians can be a bit logical and consistent, otherwise, it may cause irreparable damage to their personal reputation.

As for the ruling itself, you can’t expect the Chinese government to be happy with a “ruling”, even a worthless one, that is against Chinese interest; just like you can’t expect the Australian government to be happy with a “ruling” that is against Australia’s reputation.

I’m a little surprised that the Chinese foreign minister did not urge Australia to accept the “ruling”.

If I have any association with the Chinese government, I would advise it to warn the Australian government about the irreparable damage by ignoring whoever’s “law” or opinion.

As for the reputation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, since it was established 117 years ago, it has handed down 16 rulings and none of them was accepted or implemented.

It’s also worth to mention that its fund now mainly comes from the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Malcolm Schosha
You have given no arguments that discredit the Permanent Court of

Arbitration. Since you are clearly very determined to support the view of
the Chinese government, there seems little reason to hope for this
discussion to go anyplace.

In any case, I prefer it when you share information and images showing the
beauty of China, with its wonderful cultural history and achievements. On
that we can agree.

All Things Chinese
I haven’t commented on any ruling itself, how can you say I support one view or another?

I just found Australia’s Coalition government has not been consistent with its attitudes, because from what the information I gathered, both courts equally lack authority and legal basis and are not worthy of paying attention to.

Malcolm Schosha
You do not support the position of the Chinese government, that the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, on China’s island-building, is worthless?

All Things Chinese
I only said I am not commenting on the dispute itself here right now. As for these particular five members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as I’ve already stated, that evidence shows they were paid by one party in the dispute to rule against another party in the dispute that, in my opinion, is an act of corruption. Therefore their ruling is, no doubt, worthless and deserving no comment.

You are most welcome to leave your comments below