Most countries prefer mediation to settle disputes: SJ
Most countries prefer mediation to settle disputes: SJ
Paul Lam has stressed that non-member states can also use the services provided by the International Organization for Mediation. Photo: RTHK
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has the potential to show the world that disputes can be solved by "equal and peaceful means".
Speaking days after the founding of the IOMed in the SAR last Friday, Lam stressed that there is always an urgency for mediation on a global level.
For example, he noted that two years ago, Iran and the United Arab Emirates resumed diplomatic relations through the help of Chinese mediation.
"I think there's major room for mediation. We shouldn't allow the rather dejecting small amount of countries that disrespect international laws hurt our confidence. Rather, this highlights the need for mediation," the minister said on Commercial Radio.
"We need to change the whole atmosphere, and show that the vast majority of countries in the world insist on using equal and peaceful means to settle disputes. We can use this new platform to demonstrate our persistence on such principles."
Lam said non-member states can also use the mediation service, and they are most welcome to join the organisation going forward.
He noted that compared with arbitration or litigation, countries who take part in mediation are more likely to respect the results of the process, since both parties would have found common ground through direct negotiations.
Speaking on a TVB programme later, the minister said the renovation of the organisation's base – at the Old Wan Chai Police Station – should be completed by the end of the year.
When it will start taking on cases depends on member states, and the formation of the organisation's secretariat, he added.
The minister also stressed that the organisation is located in Hong Kong not only because of China's backing, but it also reflects the reputation of the SAR's rule of law, the city's global status, safety and transport links.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
8 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong property managers to receive mediation training in new pilot scheme
Mediation training will be offered to property managers in Hong Kong as part of a government pilot scheme, launching next month, to help them better address water seepage complaints from tenants. Some 120 senior property management staff from around 90 private housing estates will be selected to join the pilot programme. Six training sessions will be conducted from July until the third quarter of next year, with each session containing about 20 participants, a Legislative Council panel heard on Monday. The city's justice secretary, Paul Lam Ting-kwok, said that the government aimed to cultivate a 'mediation culture' within society. 'Mediation is a flexible, constructive, time- and cost-effective approach in resolving disputes,' he said. 'We believe that a better understanding of mediation in the community can help build a harmonious society as it fosters a culture that embraces mutual respect, harmony, and inclusiveness.'
Asia Times
12 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's China rant can't hide his trade war retreat
'China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' That's how US President Donald Trump exploded on Truth Social on May 30, accusing China of breaching a trade agreement. But the all-caps fury betrays something deeper: an American leader who's cornered, not commanding. Trump's tantrum was triggered by China's accelerating export push, particularly in green technologies. Yet the timing is revealing. His administration had just postponed key tariff hikes it had loudly threatened for months. Behind the social media outrage is a man who blinked first and who, many investors now believe, will have to do so again. Despite a barrage of promises to hammer China with sweeping new levies, Trump pulled back in May from a threatened 145%, which was trimmed to 30% after talks in Geneva. Planned hikes on Chinese electric vehicles, solar equipment and critical minerals were softened or delayed. The explanation from US officials has been bureaucratic: more time is needed to 'consult stakeholders' and 'ensure compliance.' But the reality is starker: Washington flinched while Beijing stood firm. (China's retaliatory tariffs on US goods dropped from 125% to 10% after the Geneva talks). The president's own trade team sees the danger. American businesses are still deeply entangled in Chinese supply chains. Retaliatory tariffs would drive up costs at a time when consumers are already weary from inflation. Global investors, spooked by any whiff of trade uncertainty, would punish US and dollar-denominated assets fast and hard. Markets are already muttering warnings. US bond yields are inching upward again, and not because of surging demand or economic heat. This is no longer theoretical. Trump's campaign promised tax cuts, big-ticket infrastructure and more military spending, all meaning selling more debt—and quickly. But foreign buyers, already skittish, won't keep showing up if Washington looks like it's charging headlong into a new trade war with the world's second-largest economy. China knows it; and Trump's team knows it, too. This is why, despite the headline and social media threats, his administration has quietly eased off. They know that Chinese EVs, batteries and solar modules aren't flooding the US directly as they're being rerouted through Mexico and Southeast Asia via subsidiaries set up to insulate parent firms from direct exposure. Slapping tariffs on imports from China doesn't catch the web of new intermediaries that have been built precisely to dodge blunt-force trade barriers. As such, almost whatever the tariff threat, the punch won't land. Yet Trump—desperate to look like he's swinging—finds himself shouting on social media instead of delivering results. Beijing, by contrast, is playing the long game. While Trump fumes, China is making strategic gains. In 2024, its trade surplus with the US surged again, reaching nearly US$280 billion. Its companies are dominating the global EV supply chain. Its solar firms are undercutting Western competitors on price. It's not just about scale, it's about speed and focus. China can deploy industrial policy in weeks; the US takes years and so far its not clear it even works. The cold truth is that the US can't tariff its way out of this. The 2018–2020 trade war proved it. Trump's previous tariffs cost US households billions. According to the New York Federal Reserve, by 2020, they were imposing an annual cost of $830 per household. Jobs didn't flood back to America from overseas, manufacturing didn't boom, prices rose and China adjusted. Now, with US bond markets tightening, fiscal space shrinking and supply chains even more complex, doubling down on tariffs would be economic self-sabotage. Trump can bark, but another tariff climbdown is already priced in the market. Even among Republican lawmakers and donors, there's rising discomfort. They signed on for deregulation, for tax cuts, for 'America First' energy. But tanking the bond market and stoking inflation with a tariff binge? Not so much. This is not what they backed, and, it can be reasonably assumed, that they're letting Trump's advisors know. Trump's 'Mr Nice Guy' line wasn't just bluster, it was projection. He's trying to paint himself as betrayed and angry to cover the fact that he's the one who backed down first. It's a classic move. Frame your weakness as someone else's fault. Lash out. Distract. But markets aren't fooled, and China certainly isn't either. Beijing sees the fissures, senses the panic behind the posts and understands that Trump doesn't have many cards left to play. His hardline tariff threats are slogans, not strategy. What's next? Expect another Trumpian climbdown, now widely derided by the 'TACO' acronym for 'Trump always chickens out.' Trump's team may repackage it again—more consultation, more review, a desire to avoid 'unintended consequences.' But the direction is clear. The US bond market is telegraphing it. The policy machinery is slowing it, and Trump's own inability to dictate the terms of global trade is exposing it. His Truth Social feed might rage louder and louder. But this time, the more he raises his online voice, the clearer for all to see that he's losing the fight to China.
Asia Times
15 hours ago
- Asia Times
Australia's trade would be fatally exposed in a US-China war
If war breaks out between the United States and China someday, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade. Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports. When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometers. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons. Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we've seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping. Australia's current defense strategy cites the security of our 'sea lines of communication and maritime trade' as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war. To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia's National Security, the problem with the government's maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises. Defense documents insist on a need for the Australian Defense Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia's shores in order to protect the nation's trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping. However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China. The reality is that Australia's A$1.2 trillion (US$778 billion) of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries. Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia's national interests may well not be the paramount concern. Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia's shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war. In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry. If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines, the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal. Australia is expected to acquire three Virginia-class submarines from the US under the AUKUS deal. Photo: Colin Murty / AAP via The Conversation Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten. In other words, the government's future maritime plan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation's trade over thousands of kilometers. Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don't necessitate the building of warships. Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security. Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants. The Australian government should also modernize its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war. The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation's liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our onshore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security. Additionally, the government should identify and subsidize vital industries, such as fertilizers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials. Lastly, Australian industries, with the government's assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations. Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military. This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path. The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril. Unfortunately, in the case of the nation's maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia's trade. Albert Palazzo is adjunct professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
