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.

  • 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.

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

            Your take on Self-Determination boils down to just saying “I know better than they do” - you think they should change their mode of government to something else which you think is better and if they don’t then it’s perfectly justified for those who you aprove off to do it for them.

            That’s pure Imperialist bullshit, no different from what from the bullshit out of the elites of every single imperialist power, including America and Russia, and is a variant of the good old “it’s civilized people coming to civilize the barbarians” idea so common in justifying the atrocities European colonialism.

            Maybe me being Portuguese rather than Spanish and my countrymen chosing to kick out the Fascists rather than, like in Spain the Fascists deciding to given themselves immunity for their actions and “allow” a transition to Democracy, explains why I believe that self-determination eventually works and you believe that outsiders imposing their will is a morally righteous path.

            As for the rest, that’s pure dissembling and raging at strawmen to avoid addressing my points - if you could disprove what I wrote you would have done it rather fixating on spelling and raging like a child at your own, self-crafted purposed miscaracterisation of myself and what I wrote.

            You’re obviously putting political loyalty above Principle and in doing so you display the same contemptible lack of Morals and Principles as the worst Americans and Russians.

            Frankly, you sound a lot like the Fascists: different political flag same authoritarian heart.