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.
It’s not related to Taiwan, but that commenter made a connection. Do you not get it?
The western lib obsession with Taiwan is unbelievable. China hasn’t entered a war in 50+ years, it’s literally inconceivable for the western mind that China actually has good trade relations with Taiwan, because you can only understand violence and sanction, as is the case of Cuba by the US.
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.
The Russian republic had armed conflict in the 90s and 2000s with the Chechen wars, it has precedent of militaristic attitudes.
The US had armed conflict in the 90s, 2000s and 2010s, and Israel has been genociding Palestinians since its inception
China doesn’t have a recent history of militarism. It’s pure speculation and kinda senseless looking at China’s attitudes towards Taiwan and their extensive trade agreements.
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.
This is over 50 years ago as I said, and you’re mischaracterizing what happened. 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.
The difference are the results. In Tibet now there’s a high development index state with conservation of their culture, traditions and language, a functioning government with autonomy, and high levels of education and welfare. In Iraq, Syria and Libya, you have dismantled failed states, terrorism, religious extremism, disintegration of infrastructure and a total lack of education and welfare state. If you cared a minimum about informing yourself on Tibet and its inhabitants, you’d know this, instead of swallowing the American propaganda whole and using Tibetans as a political weapon instead of considering them as people with an agency and power.
Again, you’re just digging the hole deeper:
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.
Using ‘lib’ as an insult just exposes the idiocy, thanks for self reporting.
Red MAGA, Green MAGA, it doesn’t change.
It’s not an insult, it’s a description of your political position, a shortening of the word “liberal” in the USian sense of the word.
What’s green MAGA? Genuinely curious, I never heard that before. Maybe following the teachings of Gaddafi’s green book?