this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
105 points (96.5% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2932 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

The Chinese government appears to be brushing off Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s call for Beijing to assist an international coalition in protecting commercial shipping in the Red Sea from Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militias.

Beijing signaled that it has no interest in joining the Pentagon’s Operation Prosperity Guardian , a multinational force including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain, in providing security for cargo ships under threat of Houthi attack.

“We believe relevant parties, especially major countries with influence, need to play a constructive and responsible role in keeping the shipping lanes safe in the Red Sea,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Thursday in an indirect reference to U.S. military and diplomatic heft in the region.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] test113 12 points 9 months ago (15 children)

You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.

Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you'll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.

That's why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won't significantly change the priority list.

The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what's happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the "9/11 card," and the USA would allow and support it.

Just to be clear, I neither support any form of "genocide" nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.

If you believe China's reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it's improbable, considering China isn't known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China's agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn't make it morally superior.

Example here: Uyghur genocide.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (10 children)

If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable,

Yeah that's true. I meant: The US has no grounds asking China for help with "maintaining peace in the Middle East". I'm more objecting to the article's way of putting it, like it does here

China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

While I definitely don't like China, "help us protect our genocidal ally from the consequences of their actions" isn't something I'd expect or want them to agree to, either.

There's no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.

[–] Dead_or_Alive -2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

A good amount of the shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz is between China and Europe. It’s only fair that China do its fair share of the lifting.

I do find it ironic that the CCP systematically opposes the country that patrols and keeps the world’s shipping lanes open for international trade. Trade which ensures the continued existence of the CCP.

[–] Ember4274 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The Houtis are targeting Israeli linked ships, not Chinese ships

That is not the strait of Hormuz, grab a map before formulating an opinion on such a complex matter

[–] Dead_or_Alive -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why bless your heart. What a wonderfully simple world view.

To imagine that a country which is dependent upon trade shouldn’t have a stake in keeping a trade route with its second largest trading block free from attacks.

It must be blissful to be so unaware of the impact that attacks on that area will have on shipping and insurance.

You must sleep very soundly at night.

[–] Ember4274 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dead_or_Alive -1 points 8 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)