Wang Yi cautioned against a return to the ‘law of the jungle’ but stopped short of criticising Trump directly

Wang Yi cautioned against a return to the ‘law of the jungle’ but stopped short of criticising Trump directly

War in the Middle East “should never have happened”, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi has declared, even as he struck a more conciliatory tone with the US ahead of a highly anticipated visit by Donald Trump.

Regime change, a key stated aim of the US president as the US and Israel continue to attack Iran, “will find no popular support”, Wang said on Sunday. “A strong fist does not mean strong reason. The world cannot return to the law of the jungle,” he added.

Speaking on the sidelines of China’s annual parliamentary and political gatherings, known as the Two Sessions, the country’s top diplomat and foreign affairs official notably avoided directly criticising the US.

  • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    91·
    3 months ago

    It’s not related to Taiwan, but that commenter made a connection. Do you not get it?

      • Wataba@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        65·
        3 months ago

        Using ‘lib’ as an insult just exposes the idiocy, thanks for self reporting.

        Red MAGA, Green MAGA, it doesn’t change.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        The exact same Principle applies to judging the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the American and Israeli aggression against Iran and the possible Chinese aggression against Taiwan.

        The difference for the latter is that so far it has only been threats, hence only concern about the possibility of it happening is justified, whilst judging China for it is not justified.

        Not saying that some (maybe even most) people knee-jerking “Taiwan” as soon as somebody says “China” aren’t being good little propaganda-driven muppets, rather I’m saying that some are not and their concern comes from personal principles around aggression and self-determination.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            22·
            3 months ago

            Communist China has invaded and annexed Tibet.

            So China when governed by the very same political force as governs it now is a proven imperialist.

            They’re also more powerful than Russia and on their way to supplant the US.

            It makes total sense to be worried that a powerful nation which under a government of the same ideology as governs it now has done so, will invade another far weaker and much smaller neighboring country which they’ve been consistently claiming to be “part of our nation” for decades.

            What it doesn’t make sense is to blame China for something they haven’t actually done, only talked about.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                11·
                3 months ago

                Tibet was a feudal kingdom where the vast majority of the population were starved serfs legally bound to the land of their god-given lord. China liberated Tibet from feudalism and rose life expectancy and material conditions massively, while preserving their heritage, language and culture, and a degree of autonomy within China higher than most other regions (Tibet is an autonomous region).

                That’s the “they were ruled by evil dictators so we freed them” argument so beloved by Americans when they invade a country to take their shit.

                That Chinese propaganda right now - 2026 not 50 years ago - justifies China’s invasion and annexation of Tibet with the same kind of argument as America’s invasions are justfied, says all we need to know about the mindset of the power elites in both countries being pretty much the same, reinforcing fears that the Chinese Communist Party that rules China right know still has the same principles as it did back when it invaded and annexed Tibet and hence will do the same in a similar situation.

                You parroting that just further makes my point that it’s justified to be concerned with the possibility of China invading the weaker neighbor country is has always claimed to be part of it rather than a separate sovereign country.

                  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                    11·
                    3 months ago

                    Again, you’re just digging the hole deeper:

                    • You’re just denying the whole principle of Self-Determination, same as Americans do. It’s not up to other people to decide how somebody else lives their lives. China took every single possible future away from Tibetans, many if not all of which would be better.
                    • All your statistics are based on a country which has been heavilly “colonized” by the dominant ethnic group of the invading nation since. Yeah, sure, the Hun live great lives in Tibet, but what about the ethnic-Tibetans? This is like saying the territory of Palestine is much better as it is now with a big chunk of it occupied by Israel than it would be if it remained is it was back when the whole area was ruled by the British - if you both ignore the natural improvements in quality of life it would have had anyway even under self-rule AND look at the average including the colonizers rather than only the original native, you get better numbers.

                    Basically you moved from using the American justification argument to using the Israeli justification, which I’m afraid isn’t actually less imperialist, quite the contrary.

                    Something completelly different and totally valid, IMHO, is if China had inspired Tibetans to overthrow their leadership and install Communism - similar to Vietnam - but that’s not what China did: China chose annexation and colonization - the path of domination not the path of partnership.