3 ms·
Aren't China consistently critical of violent aggression? I don't see how their being critical of Israeli violence is supporting terrorism elsewhere. China are
by AlecSchueler 3y ago
Aren't China consistently critical of violent aggression? I don't see how their being critical of Israeli violence is supporting terrorism elsewhere. China are one of the main players in trying to encourage peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
I feel like you're maybe trying to make a different point but avoiding saying it?
- bluGill 3y agoboth sides are violent here.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Aren't China consistently critical of violent aggression? No, they frequently support violence when it’s internal suppression. They also support violence for e.g. taking Taiwan. The simple answer is China can have its cake and eat it too, so why not.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoSorry, I thought aggression on the international stage was more clearly implied. I understand there are issues in Taiwan, Tibet, Ugyyhur province. But they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems. I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph. China have worked consistently with SA and Yemen to try to facilitate peace talks. They were opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are opposed to Israeli aggression.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems China invaded and annexed Nepal (EDIT: Tibet). They’re also prominently involved in Central Asian and African politics. > not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph China depends on Middle Eastern oil. The Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandab closing pose an existential crisis to it. Letting America deal with the problem lets Beijing focus on messaging.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhen did China invade Nepal? I'm aware that they have close relationships politically with many countries but that's very different than invading them, overthrowing their leaders or arming groups that will destabilise them. I'm not sure I agree with your last point. It feels like you're assuming that the American solution is necessary or the only way. As I said above, other actors may see it differently.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoSorry, brain fart. I meant Tibet. > feels like you're assuming that the American solution is necessary or the only way No. I think a regional solution would be better. But Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are constrained by domestic politics, and everyone else with militaries in the region is an ally who would expect America to take lead or a competing oil exporter.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoAh, ok. I think 1951 was a little bit before they adapted their current non interference policies. If the US and others weren't actively arming the Saudis then a regional solution might be easier to find.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> If the US and others weren't actively arming the Saudis then a regional solution might be easier to find It’s a system problem that America didn’t start. Pulling the plug on Riyadh and Jerusalem would likely lead to their collapse, plunging the region into decades of anarchy.
- r00fus 3y agoThat or Saudi Arabia & Israel would have to play nice with the rest of the region. Amusing since most of the arms are from US manufacturers.