Foreign news

Pompeo may want a ‘new Cold War,’ not everyone does

Published

6 years ago

July 29, 2020

Editor’s note: CGTN’s First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The daily column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

It is said that China and the U.S. have never been more divided since the establishment of diplomatic relationships in the 20th century. However, as its turning out, U.S. policy towards China is also reaching a depth of division like never before.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s infamous China speech on July 23 has incited a tsunami of criticism within America’s foreign policy circles and in the media. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an opinion piece in the Washington Post on July 26. He blasted Pompeo as “decidedly undiplomatic” and stated that Pompeo has misinterpreted history while failing to “suggest a coherent or viable path forward for managing a relationship that more than any other will define this era.”

Ticked off by Pompeo’s not so subtle attempt to turn Chinese people against the Communist Party of China (CPC), Haass claimed that “it is not within our power to determine China’s future, much less transform it.” Whatever problems or challenges China’s facing, and whatever the relationship is between the CPC and the Chinese people, “will be for the Chinese people and their leaders to determine,” he said.

Steve Hadley, former National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush, believed that any administration’s China policy should be a sustainable one that doesn’t divide the world or take the two countries onto a path of confrontation. However, the problem is, many experts and former government officials don’t see Trump administration’s China strategy as solely centered on China or come from a place of international relations

Rather, many see domestic situations in the U.S. and Trump’s own political fortune as driving the administration’s hostility towards the world’s second largest economy. In a New York Times report dated July 25, it’s made clear that Trump’s campaign aides believe that aggression towards China, like closing down Chinese Consulate in Houston, “could help energize voters.”

A story by Los Angeles Times published on July 26 pointed out that Trump’s China policy has “repeatedly seesawed and has often appeared inconsistent or haphazard.” But now, with the election on the horizon, China hawks are granted “free rein.” Many China scholars and policymakers see this so-called “slegehammer” approach toward China as “counterproductive and disingenuous in its purported concern for Chinese people.” Debroah Seligsohn, former U.S. diplomat focused on Asia, told LA Times: “There are ways to handle the relationship without blasting through it.”

But blast it did. Michael D. Swaine, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on Twitter that the U.S. move to close Chinese Consulate in Houston was a “transparent effort by mindless ideologues and political manipulators to help Trump’s political fortunes.” And in response to China’s closure of U.S. Consulate in Chengdu, Swaine pointed out that the Trump administration wanted this move to happen. “It is part of the decoupling and demonization campaign that it thinks will magically make Beijing do what it wants,” wrote Swaine.

The Financial Times had an interesting description of Pompeo’s speech: “Short on prescriptive policy detail, Mr. Pompeo’s speech had the feeling of a popular campaign speech at times.” There has been no shortage of speculation about Pompeo’s post-Secretary-of-State political ambition. In May, the NYT published a story pointing out that Pompeo had visited conservative donors and political figures on official business trips as he “nurtures plans for a presidential bid in 2024 and as he considered a run for the Senate form Kansas.” As Trump’s political fortune in uncertainty, it wouldn’t be too unreasonable to imagine that Pompeo could be looking out for his own future. After all, who better to pick up the mantle of a president chanting tough on China than his very own Secretary of State who might’ve put China and the U.S. on a path of confrontation?

Scriptwriter: Huang Jiyuan

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us atopinions@cgtn.com.)

Share on Facebook

Foreign news

Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’

Published

1 month ago

August 31, 2026

The Gleamer

Cyril Ogar

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.

The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.

The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.

In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.

The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.

The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.

The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.

The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.

The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.

The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.

The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.

For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.

The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.

Share on Facebook