China requires provenance of all foreign aircraft
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..
Skipped a very interesting reading.
....
As no court cases on the matter are in the news, I would expect that Russia hasn't tried their luck in finding how far their reputation has been dragged by Putin, but it is not likely that any court direction coming out of a criminal state such as Russia will be accepted in Ireland under the treaty. (I certainly hope that is an overly optimistic expectation of jurisprudence)
Skipped a very interesting reading.
....
As no court cases on the matter are in the news, I would expect that Russia hasn't tried their luck in finding how far their reputation has been dragged by Putin, but it is not likely that any court direction coming out of a criminal state such as Russia will be accepted in Ireland under the treaty. (I certainly hope that is an overly optimistic expectation of jurisprudence)
Only half a speed-brake
Dare I ask, how educated that guess is? There's people who spend 10+ years in the Mainland on these pages and none of them have such clear cut views. Neither the Fragrantly Harboured who might have a case even.
Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳
Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳
Think: What, when China has to make a choice between a Russian court decision (granting Russian state-ownership to impounded aircrafts) and (for now non-existing public) Western court ruling around the same ownership ? TBH, I think, they just raise their hands to the sky and tell all parties to first resolve their court-issues and for now, China will not take action. At least, that's my guess. China's att covered against sanctions and Russia happy, they still can fly to China.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dare I ask, how educated that guess is? There's people who spend 10+ years in the Mainland on these pages and none of them have such clear cut views. Neither the Fragrantly Harboured who might have a case even.
Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳
Although it's a pattern noticed repeatedly in your posts, WS, self proclaimed truths. 😳
Most people don't get any further than just "writing what they notice". The next step is to interpret these facts and what these facts imply. And that interpretation is often "soft", the facts aren't often that clear (or already interpreted), often the facts are conflicting, etc.
The challenge is to match these facts with other knowledge, more general principles, known goals/targets, try to find some "logic", etc, and from there "predict" what might happen. By doing this, you can be prepared in an early stage for what is coming and work on strategies to gain advantage compared to those, who don't get further than humbug complaining about the things they don't like. Once you get used to such an approach, it's even interesting and see, that your predictions indeed start to happen (of course, not always). Do this in business, and you can become very rich, like the new-tech people (I am personally not interested in more money, I have enough ;-) ).
Based on what was reported on CNN around the 2020 election, I "predicted" the steps Trump would take to try to revert the inevitable. I did predict he would try to falsify on the electors, I did predict, he would try to let the VP throw out the unwelcome election results, I did predict, he would initiate a violent insurrection attempt and some more of these things. And now, more and more of my predictions do surface to have been reality.
Of course, my predictions aren't always right, though often these do hit a nail. So, educated guesses, based on partial information.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do flights of my own aircraft into China frequently, and documentation for permits is a matter that takes care from all concerned, HKG, JPN, and SGP are particularly careful with documents. China may be coy on the matter but they have a lot more to lose than gain by permitting the breach that occurs with the Russian use of aircraft contrary to both lease breaches, which run close to grand theft, and a complete disregard by Russia of Annex 8. A majoritry of these aircraft will be illegal to operate into any signatory airspace either now or in the very near future. It certainly begs the question as to who is insuring them. Nowthere are short term ways to resolve those technicalities, but one of them will become seriously limiting in the near future. There is a way around that but I have no interest in assisting the kleptocracts resolve their impending quandary.
So, how to let the Russia confiscated aircraft enter China and don't get the US angry, etc. One option for that, is to take care, there are conflicting court-orders. For which China simply can say: "We don't want to take side, please resolve these among the conflicting parties". And in the meantime, we don't block any Russian aircraft with disputed ownership, access to China.
And, because these aircrafts are under Russian control, Russia can easily create the court-orders, making the aircraft paperwork "legal" again (despite this conflicting with the Western records). Russia is not interested in all the aircraft paperwork technicalities, many people here stumble over. Insurance will be from Russian companies (which probably won't pay, when things go haywire, etc).
Russia simply states: "The paperwork is correct" and when needed, will product court-orders for that. In the end, Russia is an extremely corrupt country, especially at the state level. Forget about honesty. It does not exist in Russia (nor China), otherwise, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.......
We see the dishonest level in the extreme with the Russian army. It turns out to be "big", though completely incompetent, with from low level all the way to the top, just "Jay-sayers", not good for the reality of a strong and capable army.
Oh, and, once the Russia problem is dissolved, Western lease companies do have a big issue, to get all their aircraft back in an acceptable paperwork trail, an expensive challenge. Though, I think, in general, doable, since the Russian airlines flying the aircraft do have their procedures in place, etc, which will not suddenly be dropped, etc. So, there is a paper trail, it just needs investigation for quality and potential non-compliant repairs, etc.
I would suggest that the FAA will soon issue an AD saying that any maintenance by a Russian MRO on a Boeing airplane since the start of sanctions will render the C of A invalid. There are a lot more state responsibilities other than checking the airplane registration. I would be very surprised if China would be willing to risk their global access to airspace by allowing Russian owned stolen Western airplanes which are demonstrably not airworthy, to operate in their airspace.
China is Russia’s friend until there is a cost to them, then all bets are off
China is Russia’s friend until there is a cost to them, then all bets are off
BPF, I think you have the right answer, and that would also work for EASAville. An AD would be appropriate, there is not much argument that continuing the aircraft without any OEM support is acceptable for a public safety aspect, and that is one of the primary reasons to put any AD out there.
How does the State of Manufacture have any means to ensure that their product is safe for function? It is similar to what would happen if an MRO is determined to be acting contrary to their authorizations, and while Russia can go do what they wish internally and they are a sovereign criminal state, as soon as they cross the border, then that is not the case, and no country would be able to accept an AD from the State of Manufacture that states a risk exists that precludes safe operation of the aircraft. The follow on is for the insurers to step down, and keep their paid up fees as an operator that may knowingly be breaching the requirements to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition would void the insurance, arguably AVN94 applies:
For punters flying with Aeroflot etc, it is your choice to do so, and that is with full expectation that even without vodka, a bad day out will not end up with a cheque unless it comes from Count Vlad's ruble account. For the NAA's that may permit the aircraft to overfly your cities, you are taking a bucketload of liability upon your head; an A330 or 777 plonking downtown Shanghai will look bad on the resume, and who is gonna pay the bills?
If the AMM system is anything like my planes nowdays, (its a while since I looked after any Boeings) there is probably multiple items that have come up on every aircraft in the last 3 months, like deep cycling of the ships batteries, emergency lighting system, standby AH/IFSD etc, and every one of those tests requires an active subscription to the OEM for the MPD/AMM etc. Now, Ruski planes can get Ruski IRAN MPDs for your MiG or Mi's but the lessor will not be amused and would have a great additive claim to the operator. I cannot see the Russian operators ever again getting a lease for a western-built bicycle let alone Boeing or 'bus for the actions under the sanctions, so hope the natives enjoy their rides in their national aircraft. As Antonov was mainly or completely made in Ukraine, that's at least one former CIS manufacturer off the options table.
Out of 187 aircraft or so, Aeroflot has 10 Russian-built aircraft, 10 Su-100's. They have:
There are some spares in the side of a hill in Mt Salak, south of Soekarno Hatta (APU is in the cockpit), some floating around Keflavik needing straightening, Yakutsk (not the gear), and some slightly sooty bits off the end of one of the runways at Sheremetyevo. Alternatively, they can remove the psycho in the castle, and get on with their lives. One fairly smart dude reportedly said:
The man asked, “What in particular?” Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as you do yourself.”
Would make a good new paradigm for Russia's Tzar, minions, and grunts.
Smart man, this Jesus guy, did some good, helped people, didn't end well; sad, oh well.
How does the State of Manufacture have any means to ensure that their product is safe for function? It is similar to what would happen if an MRO is determined to be acting contrary to their authorizations, and while Russia can go do what they wish internally and they are a sovereign criminal state, as soon as they cross the border, then that is not the case, and no country would be able to accept an AD from the State of Manufacture that states a risk exists that precludes safe operation of the aircraft. The follow on is for the insurers to step down, and keep their paid up fees as an operator that may knowingly be breaching the requirements to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition would void the insurance, arguably AVN94 applies:
AVN 94 – Breach of Air Navigation Regulations Clause The cover afforded to each Insured by the Policy shall not be invalidated by any act or omission which results in a breach of any air navigation or airworthiness orders or requirements issued by any competent authority affecting the safe operation of the Aircraft provided that the Insured so protected has not caused, contributed to or knowingly condoned the said act or omission. Any Insured who has caused, contributed to or knowingly condoned the said act or omission shall not be entitled to indemnity under the Policy. Except as specifically varied by this clause, all other terms, conditions, limitations, warranties, exclusions and cancellation provisions of the Policy apply.
If the AMM system is anything like my planes nowdays, (its a while since I looked after any Boeings) there is probably multiple items that have come up on every aircraft in the last 3 months, like deep cycling of the ships batteries, emergency lighting system, standby AH/IFSD etc, and every one of those tests requires an active subscription to the OEM for the MPD/AMM etc. Now, Ruski planes can get Ruski IRAN MPDs for your MiG or Mi's but the lessor will not be amused and would have a great additive claim to the operator. I cannot see the Russian operators ever again getting a lease for a western-built bicycle let alone Boeing or 'bus for the actions under the sanctions, so hope the natives enjoy their rides in their national aircraft. As Antonov was mainly or completely made in Ukraine, that's at least one former CIS manufacturer off the options table.
Out of 187 aircraft or so, Aeroflot has 10 Russian-built aircraft, 10 Su-100's. They have:
- Snecma JV on the engines...
- Thales avionics
- Messier-Bugatti-Dowty gear
- Honeywell APU
- Liebherr DFCS
- Intertechnique for fuel
- Parker-Hannifin Hydraulics
- B/E interiors...
There are some spares in the side of a hill in Mt Salak, south of Soekarno Hatta (APU is in the cockpit), some floating around Keflavik needing straightening, Yakutsk (not the gear), and some slightly sooty bits off the end of one of the runways at Sheremetyevo. Alternatively, they can remove the psycho in the castle, and get on with their lives. One fairly smart dude reportedly said:
The man asked, “What in particular?” Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as you do yourself.”
Would make a good new paradigm for Russia's Tzar, minions, and grunts.
Smart man, this Jesus guy, did some good, helped people, didn't end well; sad, oh well.
Actually, I think, Russia will simply produce "court documents", with a legal binding confiscation of all these aircrafts, stating the new legal ownership of these aircrafts is in Russia. And, then, China will say: "OK, these are legally owned by a Russian company, etc". If there is an ownership dispute, please first go to court, before we take action on this. So, yeah, I do have some doubts, whether the China mandatory ownership proving is going to make much of a difference. The only difference is, that China can now state they did take action.
The Russians would need to apply to the London courts to recognize the Russian court order which will never happen.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russia is a signatory state to the Capetown convention, if they have a Russian court order saying change of ownership, that still has to be registered on the international registry for it to be recognized. They wont get recognized as the previous owner and the international registry will not accept a Russian court document as a legal change of ownership as the binding lease contract states the only venue that matters relating to the contract will be heard is in London.
The Russians would need to apply to the London courts to recognize the Russian court order which will never happen.
The Russians would need to apply to the London courts to recognize the Russian court order which will never happen.
That's a good one, though I doubt, China will go that far and just simply accepts the Russian court version, for "local China use", be it accepted throughout the world, or not. Hey, China did throw out / overruled the HK Basic Law, at the first opportunity they saw. China adheres only to Western "requests", when they have no other opportunity and/or it's going to cost China a significant amount of money.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I admit that the present thread has been comparatively light on deriding or derision of lawyers, regardless, this SLF/att'y wants to observe that legal acumen on Capetown Convention matters is not widespread in the profession. After all, it's pretty dry stuff.
I know one such attorney though, and he's been quite difficult to reach through his office coordinates, unusually so.
It's not part of the usual accumulation of agenda items and working papers and so on (as far as I've seen) but I still wonder how many side conversations among and with the "aviation diplomatic corps" will take place in the corridors during this fall's ICAO Assembly. "Whither the over-riding holy grail of 'standardization'?", I might ask perhaps a former ICAO SecGen.... I mean if I had representation and att'y-client privy with any entity in the "aviation diplomatic corps."
I know one such attorney though, and he's been quite difficult to reach through his office coordinates, unusually so.
It's not part of the usual accumulation of agenda items and working papers and so on (as far as I've seen) but I still wonder how many side conversations among and with the "aviation diplomatic corps" will take place in the corridors during this fall's ICAO Assembly. "Whither the over-riding holy grail of 'standardization'?", I might ask perhaps a former ICAO SecGen.... I mean if I had representation and att'y-client privy with any entity in the "aviation diplomatic corps."
Allowing stolen Boeing aircraft to fly in Chinese airspace is a clear sanctions violation. I think there would be a significant negative response from the US government which will directly compromise Chinese global business interests. China is, like usual, playing both sides of the board but not to the extent that support for Russia has a significant cost to China. The proof of provenance requirements is IMO a quite elegant solution. It will in practice deny Russian aircraft entry into Chinese airspace, thus placating the US but without directly targeting Russia as they can tell the Russians it applies to everyone.
WillowRun
An attorney question. There are some huge insurance claims being made by various leasors to recover the value of the stolen airliners. The insurance companies are not surprisingly, try to wiggle out of paying. It would seem to me we are to some extent in legally uncharted territory.
What is your reading of the tea leaves ? Do you think the claims are going to be paid ?
An attorney question. There are some huge insurance claims being made by various leasors to recover the value of the stolen airliners. The insurance companies are not surprisingly, try to wiggle out of paying. It would seem to me we are to some extent in legally uncharted territory.
What is your reading of the tea leaves ? Do you think the claims are going to be paid ?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allowing stolen Boeing aircraft to fly in Chinese airspace is a clear sanctions violation. I think there would be a significant negative response from the US government which will directly compromise Chinese global business interests. China is, like usual, playing both sides of the board but not to the extent that support for Russia has a significant cost to China. The proof of provenance requirements is IMO a quite elegant solution. It will in practice deny Russian aircraft entry into Chinese airspace, thus placating the US but without directly targeting Russia as they can tell the Russians it applies to everyone.
Yep, that is when you follow the Western rules. However, neither China, nor Russia are following these rules. They have their own and when these match with the Western ones, OK, so be it, but without a match, they follow their own, using all kinds of bent logic to justify, etc. Think about the state wise organized doping programs in these countries, winning at all costs, adherence to Western ethics is just stupidity, a sign of weakness, for these countries. Think about the absurd reasoning Russia used to invade Ukraine, which by now got bent to just the Nazi's "Lebensraum" approach.=.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidebar, Your Honor . . .
BPF
I couldn't quite think of a good witticism about tea leaves, tea, biscuits or no-biscuits.... and besides this situation is pretty much not one for levity.
As one would expect, the outcome of the various lawsuits will depend on interpretation as well as application of specific wording in policies of insurance and the aircraft lease (and related financing documents, such as letters of credit). A prime example likely is found in the "number of 'occurences' or trigger events involved in Russia's default"; that determination or ruling could "sway the value of settlements dramatically." (quoting article in Insurance Journal, May 11, 2022).
It won't come as either enlightening or surprising to say that the litigation could run on and on, and on, for quite a long time. For instance (as stated in an ariticle in the Globe and Mail, March 19), litigation involving Iraqi Airways arising from the 1990s sanctions resulting from the Kuwait conflict was in court on the order of nine years.
Glossing deliberately over one or more centrally important legal points here - because it isn't within my primary knowledge areas (and stuff about Cape Town and registration of aircraft can get pretty technical) - I'll venture to say the cases will be subject to pressure more or less at the "systemic level" to get settled. There is risk in litigating to final outcomes which result in very unfavorable terms or interpretations viewed from the standpoint of future deals and future growth and change in a given sector of an indursty or industry as a whole. And if one sees little risk, still there is uncertainty, which also is bad for future business. I hope it isn't controversial to say (at least I hope not controversial on this forum) that the re-registration of aircraft which still are carried on registers part of the lease agreements is not a valid or legal action by Russia. It undercuts so much of the "framework" - for lack of a more meaningful term - within which international civil aviation as a business has conducted itself with regard to these types of leases and financing arrangements. To press against settling, and to press hard, on the part of the insurance carriers would thus be like testimony against the future of this sub-sector of the industry worldwide. I haven't said the insurers should roll over, give me your paw, play dead, et cet'ra, just that litigating with "leg-biter legal counsel" snarling constantly and giving no quarter is probably not in the longer-term interests of the aviation insurance market and business.
One other factor, which isn't part of the thread yet but I think is quite important. Let us recall FR4978, as well as MH17. The problems that are confronting the lawyers, their clients and the related parties are direct consequeneces of imposition of sanctions. Unreasonable as well as reasonable minds can differ on all sorts of sub-issues about the Ukraine war. But drastic disregard of fundamentals of public international air law have occurred in the preliminary times of this war. To press litigation prostures to their ultimate ends while losing sight of how these issues became extant, how they occurred, is contradictory to fundamentals of how the civil aviation sector functions, globally. (Readers looking closely may see an effort to play off of "due regard" in the phrase "drastic disregard" - the academic versions of the applicable law tie together air law and space law, despite all sorts of objections).
I couldn't quite think of a good witticism about tea leaves, tea, biscuits or no-biscuits.... and besides this situation is pretty much not one for levity.
As one would expect, the outcome of the various lawsuits will depend on interpretation as well as application of specific wording in policies of insurance and the aircraft lease (and related financing documents, such as letters of credit). A prime example likely is found in the "number of 'occurences' or trigger events involved in Russia's default"; that determination or ruling could "sway the value of settlements dramatically." (quoting article in Insurance Journal, May 11, 2022).
It won't come as either enlightening or surprising to say that the litigation could run on and on, and on, for quite a long time. For instance (as stated in an ariticle in the Globe and Mail, March 19), litigation involving Iraqi Airways arising from the 1990s sanctions resulting from the Kuwait conflict was in court on the order of nine years.
Glossing deliberately over one or more centrally important legal points here - because it isn't within my primary knowledge areas (and stuff about Cape Town and registration of aircraft can get pretty technical) - I'll venture to say the cases will be subject to pressure more or less at the "systemic level" to get settled. There is risk in litigating to final outcomes which result in very unfavorable terms or interpretations viewed from the standpoint of future deals and future growth and change in a given sector of an indursty or industry as a whole. And if one sees little risk, still there is uncertainty, which also is bad for future business. I hope it isn't controversial to say (at least I hope not controversial on this forum) that the re-registration of aircraft which still are carried on registers part of the lease agreements is not a valid or legal action by Russia. It undercuts so much of the "framework" - for lack of a more meaningful term - within which international civil aviation as a business has conducted itself with regard to these types of leases and financing arrangements. To press against settling, and to press hard, on the part of the insurance carriers would thus be like testimony against the future of this sub-sector of the industry worldwide. I haven't said the insurers should roll over, give me your paw, play dead, et cet'ra, just that litigating with "leg-biter legal counsel" snarling constantly and giving no quarter is probably not in the longer-term interests of the aviation insurance market and business.
One other factor, which isn't part of the thread yet but I think is quite important. Let us recall FR4978, as well as MH17. The problems that are confronting the lawyers, their clients and the related parties are direct consequeneces of imposition of sanctions. Unreasonable as well as reasonable minds can differ on all sorts of sub-issues about the Ukraine war. But drastic disregard of fundamentals of public international air law have occurred in the preliminary times of this war. To press litigation prostures to their ultimate ends while losing sight of how these issues became extant, how they occurred, is contradictory to fundamentals of how the civil aviation sector functions, globally. (Readers looking closely may see an effort to play off of "due regard" in the phrase "drastic disregard" - the academic versions of the applicable law tie together air law and space law, despite all sorts of objections).
WillowRun
Thanks for your contribution. It is, as always, cogent and provided an interesting perspective.
Thanks for your contribution. It is, as always, cogent and provided an interesting perspective.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As WR6-3 writes, about everything happening now in this area is a flagrant violation of WESTERN (initiated/based) international law. However, both China and Russia just consider these international laws nothing more than a nuisance. Easy to use, when it fits their need, and just ignore with strange reasoning, when it does not fit. For example, check how China manages to continuing ignoring Western ownership of intellectual property rights.
And, for this ownership situation, China will have the opportunity to just state: "Look, we do have 2 conflicting court judgments, first resolve that among the 2 of you, before we will take action". A gray situation, China deliberately created, just to avoid sanctions and of course "help" Autocrat friend Vladimir.
Though, let's see things on the bright side and assume, I am wrong being skeptical. History will tell how this develops.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimate Hypocrisy Exposure
WideScreen
While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.
For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?
Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.
So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.
While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.
For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?
Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.
So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WideScreen
While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.
For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?
Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.
So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.
While there's no valid disputing the overall contention you've advanced - namely, the current government of mainland China does not start from the premise that the "rules-based international order" applies in the first instance to their country or its actions - in this particular case, there is an important qualification that IMO must be attached.
For six years, ICAO's Secretary General was a veteran aviation lawyer and diplomat from China (2015-2021). This SecGen possessed and applied great knowledge, insight, even charisma. And: the SecGen though not representing the PRC as a Member State, nonetheless was (again, IMO) highly representative, or symbolic at least, of the entirety of China's civil aviation sector, domestic as well as international. And would you guess what this SecGen's most consistent, and probably most forcefully if not also persuasively articulated theme was during her tenure?
Standardization. The critical importance of standardization. (This SLF was in the audience for several of the SecGen's addresses and appearances, in fact.) Not least, the SecGen had risen through other roles in the Secretariat, with distinguished service. After some long years at ICAO, her official pronouncements *should* have been consistent with China's policy.
So despite rhetoric to the contrary, and even, despite the linearity of the Western concept of precedent, by its current actions China has set a precedent the entire world civil aviation sector can see and recognize. Its participation at the highest level of ICAO was just an act - one performed with high fidelity by a wonderful and accomplished individual - but as far as national policy of PRC is concerned, just a dramatic imitation nevertheless.
Anyway, let us see, what is going to happen. Maybe, I am wrong (apologies upfront), and I just do overestimate the China Strategic Chess playing capabilities, Go seems to be a much more difficult game than Chess, anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not taking issue with assertions that a perception of independence, or different power mindset, may exist with respect to the diplomat. Nevertheless, the inconsistency between what was advocated, and what is happening now, is worth noting.
And it indeed plays a long game strategically, significantly longer view than the West over the past few decades.
As for facts, ICAO's SecGen in those years was a female. I'll just take under advisement whether recognition of her strength of leadership, including but not limited to "administrative function" excellence, amounts to hero worship at all.
And it indeed plays a long game strategically, significantly longer view than the West over the past few decades.
As for facts, ICAO's SecGen in those years was a female. I'll just take under advisement whether recognition of her strength of leadership, including but not limited to "administrative function" excellence, amounts to hero worship at all.
