The United States demanded that China repay its ** bonds, what was the result?
In 2019, U.S. Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee submitted a proposal to Congress in which he advocated that China should repay 20,000 bondholders totaling 1$6 trillion in debt.
The proposal was co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Mark Green, Arizona Senator Martha McSally and Tennessee Senator Martha Blackburn.
Martha McSally claimed on her personal ** that between 1900 and 1940, the Qing and *** issued millions of dollars in sovereign bonds around the world, and that China was obligated to repay these bonds under international law.
Three U.S. lawmakers spoke out for the 20,000 Americans in the United States who hold "** bonds" and advocated to China that it is more than 1$6 trillion in sovereign debt. They said McSally called on Mr. Trump to do everything possible to get China to repay the debt and smear China's actions to blame for the pandemic.
It is understood that the three lawmakers were entrusted by the "American Bondholders Organization", and the head of the organization, Bianca, also wrote a letter to Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, suggesting that they buy the bonds as a political bargaining chip against China.
Bianca stressed that China's repeated refusal to fulfill its obligations to the United States, which has taken a serious toll on American families' money and jobs, wants to send the message that China will be held accountable.
Historical debts should not be used as a political tool. Americans' demands on China stem from bonds issued by the Qing Dynasty more than 100 years ago for the construction of railroads. These bonds have now become a tool for some people to speculate, but the historical debt behind them should not be continuously exploited and doubled.
We should look at the problems left over from history in an objective and impartial manner, instead of using them as a means to attack other countries.
In modern China, railway construction has become an important means for foreign powers to compete for economic interests and political power in China. Among them,"Huguang Railway"refers to those in Hunan and Hubei provinces"Guangdong-Hanzhou Railway"with"Sichuan-Han Railway"。
On July 15, 1909, after the Qing decided to borrow money to build these two railroads, Taft of the United States sent a telegram to the Prince of Alcohol Zaifeng, the regent of the Qing Dynasty, asking China to secure the capital of the United States"Equal participation"。
At the same time, US Secretary of State Knox also warned in strong language that if the United States does not meet its wishes, it will not conform to the dignity and moral norms of the United States, and it will also violate China's consistent friendly policy toward the United States.
Under such pressure, the Qing Dynasty signed the "Huguang Railway Loan Contract" with the United States, Britain, Germany, and France in disregard of domestic opposition. This incident reflected the control of the great powers over China's railway construction and economic and political infiltration into China at that time.
Huguang Railway borrowing"The butterfly effect of the event eventually led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty. After the Xinhai Revolution, Sun Yat-sen put pressure on the banks of the United States, Britain, Germany, and France to stop lending to the Huzhou-Guangzhou Railway.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, ** proposed"Clean the house before treating"、"Start anew"policy aimed at abolishing all unequal treaties of the old China, including vicious debts like the Huzhou-Guangzhou Railway Loan, which the new China will not inherit.
2. Despite the provisions of international law, New China has made it clear that these so-called "Huguang Railway Loan" bonds have long since lost their original effect. However, some people in the United States want to make huge profits from this bond.
On November 5, 1979, American Jackson and others filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, demanding that China repay the principal and interest of their bonds.
It is astonishing that the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, accepted the case in defiance of international law and the economic agreement between China and the United States. After accepting the lawsuit, the Birmingham District Court actually listed the People's Republic of China as a "defendant" and summoned Huang Hua, the governor of the People's Republic of China, to appear in court in the United States within 20 days of receiving the summons, otherwise a "default judgment" would be rendered.
China resolutely rejected the unreasonable request of the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, returned the summons intact, and lodged representations with the United States, emphasizing that according to international law, China would not accept the trial of any foreign court.
What is infuriating is that on September 1, 1982, the U.S. District Court of Birmingham went so far as to render a "default judgment," ordering China to compensate Jackson and other plaintiffs more than $41.3 million, and threatening that if China did not honor the judgment, the court would seize China's property in the United States.
The reason for the decision of the US court was that although China enjoys sovereign immunity, it does not enjoy such privileges in its commercial activities. According to the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the issuance and sale of Huguang railway bonds in the United States is a commercial activity, and China "used the funds from the bonds to build the Huzhou-Guangzhou railway, which is still in operation today and is an integral part of China's railway system."
Thus, "the defendant does not enjoy immunity from the granting of foreign **." ”
The U.S. District Court of Birmingham insisted that even in accordance with the principle of state succession, China should bear the outstanding debt of the Huzhou-Guangzhou Railway. A change in a country's ** or policy does not affect its international status, but its international rights and obligations remain unchanged.
As the successor of the Qing Dynasty, the People's Republic of China should inherit the obligations of the Qing Dynasty and be responsible for repaying this debt.
Second, the judgment of the U.S. District Court of Birmingham has made China very dissatisfied and has also put pressure on the recovery of Sino-US relations. After the verdict was announced, the People's ** immediately published an article saying: "New China was established after the Chinese people went through all kinds of difficulties and twists and turns, and the old ** that exploited the Chinese people before has been replaced by a new ** that works for the welfare of the entire Chinese people."
To recognize and repay such debts is to deny the arduous struggle waged by the Chinese people for more than a hundred years. This is unacceptable to China and the people! ”
In addition, some experts in the Chinese legal community have published articles opposing the US court's decision.
Liu Daqun, a legal expert, pointed out that the loan of the Huguang Railway was actually the product of collusion between the feudal ruling class and the foreign powers, and was deeply hated by the Chinese people. This bond issue is not just a debt issue, but the key to defending the achievements of the Chinese people's revolution over the past century.
He stressed that the loan of the Huguang Railway is not a commercial act, but a political means to use the railway loan to suppress the people's revolution in order to save its own destiny. U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the case, and foreign sovereign immunities law does not apply.
In accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, the law applies only to facts that occurred after its promulgation and not to acts that preceded it.
The loan contract for the Huguang Railway signed in 1911 was signed during the reign of the Qing Dynasty, and the behavior and nature of the contract are inconsistent with modern international law and moral standards.
Therefore, China** has always firmly stated that we will not recognize this kind of old foreign debt as a matter of course. Such an attitude is fully in line with the principles of international law and has a sufficient legal basis.
In 1983, when U.S. Secretary of State Shultz visited China, China** re-emphasized this position.
** During the meeting with Scholz, he stressed that it is inappropriate to use the tribunal to resolve the historical issue of China's invasion and enslavement, which may anger the entire Chinese people and cause problems in relations between the two countries.
The United States said that they were not directly involved in the case and hoped that China would resolve it in accordance with the U.S. judicial process. Most U.S.** believe that China will win even if it were to go judicially.
The New York Times article also said that if the Chinese appear in court, they will definitely win the lawsuit. Therefore, **'s position has not changed, and he believes that China's historical problems should not be resolved through judicial channels.
In the summer of 1983, under the coordination of the US side, China** hired a well-known American lawyer, Tyru, to participate in the case. In court, Tyroux pointed out that the Huguang Railway Bonds were issued in 1911 and matured as early as 1951, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was passed in 1976, so the United States still exercises absolute sovereign immunity when the Huguang Railway Bonds mature, so no U.S. court has the power to "judge" China.
In addition, the United States and the Department of Justice also sent representatives to the court to support China's position.
After eight years of twists and turns, the Huguang Railway Bond Case was finally settled. In 1984, the Birmingham District Court quashed the default judgment against China, which was welcomed by China**.
However, Jackson and others were unhappy with the verdict and decided to appeal to the Circuit Court. The circuit court upheld the verdict, and Jackson appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 9, 1987, the Federal Supreme Court issued a final ruling upholding the circuit court's decision. At the heart of this case is sovereign immunity, which means that China, as a sovereign state, is not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
After eight years of struggle, the Huguang Railway bond case was finally resolved.
In handling foreign-related affairs, China has always adhered to the principle of sovereignty, which is where our country's core interests lie, and there is no room for compromise. At the same time, in accordance with the principles of international law and the norm of non-inheritance of bad debts, China is not obliged to repay the foreign debts borrowed by the Qing Dynasty to maintain its reactionary rule.
The U.S. court's decision to repay these debts and the threat of seizing Chinese assets is a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, and China's refusal to accept it is entirely justified.
5. I originally thought that after this lawsuit ended, some Americans would stop there, but unexpectedly, in 2019, they began to demand that China pay back1$6 trillion in debt, which belongs to 20,000 "bondholders".
For some Americans, the lawsuit against China is not only an opportunity to discredit China, but if they win, bonds that were once considered waste paper could make them rich overnight and reach the pinnacle of their lives.
Republican Congressman Mark Green and others are more cunning and insidious, who do not own the bonds themselves, but want to make greater profits from them.
Mr. Green has proposed to Trump and the Treasury, Commerce and Commerce Secretaries that these bonds be used as bargaining chips in the dispute between China and the United States. He calculated that China should pay 1. to the United States, taking into account factors such as inflation and interest6 trillion dollars in "reparations".
According to 2022 data, among the countries that owe China's foreign debt, the United States has 2263 trillion dollars in the first place, Japan with 12It is followed by Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, India, Canada, Brazil and Spain at 58 trillion US dollars, with a combined 51 billion foreign debt owed to China by 10 countries83 trillion dollars.
If the claim is successful, it would be equivalent to forgiving 14 percent of the U.S. foreign debt owed to China, which is a huge amount.
Some people in the United States saw that others had made a windfall by borrowing "loans from the Huzhou-Guangzhou Railway", so they turned over boxes and cabinets to find bonds such as "Yuan Shikai's big loan for the aftermath" and demanded that China repay the money.
Since the United States launched its "** war" against China, the economies of both countries have been damaged by Trump's absurd approach. What is funny is that these people not only do not look for the reasons themselves, but instead blame China for the economic downturn, and suggest that Trump use these bonds as "bargaining chips" in the friction with China.
Bloomberg reported that there is a bold proposal that has caught the attention of the White House, and the proponents of these proposals seem to believe that Trump is powerless to solve the economic crisis in the United States, but dreams of making a lot of money from China.
As for the "money" thing, some politicians in the United States are very shrewd in their calculations. After the outbreak of the new crown pneumonia epidemic in 2019, many politicians in the United States put forward the "China compensation theory" and even went to court to file a lawsuit, trying to take this opportunity to get China to forgive some of the debt of the United States.
These politicians do not care whether they can win this lawsuit or not, as long as they can stand firm in their "anti-China" stance, they will have financial support.
5. More than 100 years ago, the lawsuit over the issuance of bonds by the Qing Dynasty once again attracted attention, and even experts in the American legal circles questioned it. Hawkins, a legal expert at Duke University in the United States, believes that it is unlikely that the United States will re-examine this already cold issue and sue those bonds that have lost their value.
"I know a lot of friends from the U.S. Treasury who think it's ridiculous," he said. "Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the Foreign Immunity Act dates back to pre-1976 cases, these lawsuits will ultimately be dismissed because these bonds have no direct impact on the United States, and because the United States was not involved in loans to China involving these bonds at that time, these bonds do not qualify for the Foreign Immunity Act and cannot override China's sovereign immunity on these bonds.
The implementation of the Sino-US Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation signed in 1946 by the United States has aroused widespread concern at home and abroad. A Chinese citizen posted on social media to ask when the United States would fulfill the treaty, and was supported by a large number of netizens.
In addition, Bloomberg also reported a strange thing: the "Huguang Railway" bonds held by Bianca and others, as well as the "** financing bonds" issued in 1913, can be bought at a very low ** on some ** in the United States!
There was a fraud case in the United States in which two men used expired bonds to defraud dozens of retirees of more than $3 million. Two men have been arrested and taken to court.
One of them pleaded guilty, while another Cardwell black man insisted that the bonds were legal and valid, and suggested to the judge that the United States could use the bonds to pressure China to seek compensation, thereby acquitting him.
This can't help but make people admire the shrewdness of **. Just as the "Chang'an Observation" of Beijing's ** news current affairs commentary column said, this "claim" case, which is destined to become a farce, reflects that the "anti-China show" of American politicians is becoming more and more absurd and disgusting.
These staunch anti-China politicians have become increasingly weak in their means of maintaining hegemony and power politics, and they have only been left with incomprehensible accusations and diligent efforts to pour dirty water.
This "claims farce" actually reflects the deep panic and powerlessness of the United States about China's rise. In the past years, no matter what kind of suppression or military threats the United States adopted, it could not stop China's great rejuvenation.
Now, the United States has exhausted its skills, and only the last resort left is to smear China.
Chang'an Watch warns American politicians: Your "wishful thinking" will only bring shame on you. The Qing Dynasty has fallen, and no matter how much you preach it, the practice of "land reparations" no longer works in modern society.
The unfair debts imposed on old China by imperialism will always remind the Chinese people of the history of being invaded and bullied, and warn the Chinese people to "hold their heads high, strive for self-improvement, and resolutely safeguard their own interests."
U.S. lawmakers actually took an old bond issued by Qing ** and demanded that China repay 1With $6 trillion in debt, that's a bit far-fetched. After all, the Qing ** has long ceased to exist, and the issuer of this bond is also the Qing **, which has nothing to do with modern China.
Is this demand by the US congressmen pretending to be crazy or selling stupidity? ”