This is very very embarrassing. Julie Eadeh, a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters.
https://t.co/JfiU2O2HZq
16 comments:
It is the very job of diplomats to meet governments AND their opponents.
This article is utter nonsense. We should all be siding with the Hong Kong protestors. The Chinese government is deeply oppressive.
What Russian diplomats met with Occupy?
Russian diplomats certainly met with Occupy (as would have members of every competent foreign embassy to the US), and also with Wall Street heavies. That is just what diplomats do. Western diplomats met with Solidarnosc leaders and also with the old communist government in Poland. Diplomats of all colours and stripes have certainly met with Catalan oppositionists. US diplomats met with IRA representatives. Talking to different parties, gathering information, and analyzing that information, is two thirds of the job of a diplomat.
There is nothing strange or untoward about this picture. The point is that it says nothing, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, about the extent and nature of foreign involvement in the Hong Kong protests.
Where's your proof that Russian diplonats met with Occupy. And do you think it would be tolerated today?
I have much sympathy for the Chinese POV.
China Daily:
'The spokesperson pointed out that the US State Department spokesperson seems to take it for granted that it is the job of American diplomats to collude with local anti-government and even separatist forces everywhere around the world. Such acts arbitrarily undermine other countries' sovereignty and security despite their opposition and indignation, and show little regard for international law and basic norms governing international relations, including non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs. The international community knows only too well what a record the US keeps in this regard and how much harm such gangster logic and hegemonic acts have done to the world.'
Kaivey, you are terribly naive. Of course US interventionism and imperialism is generally a bad thing. But that does not make a diplomat meeting Hong Kong protestors suspicious. As for tolerating diplomats meeting US oppositionists, well that has been par for the course. It is inter alia why such thing as diplomatic immunity exists. And there is nothing to prevent any diplomat from meeting with any free member of the US population -- the US and Russians have been expelling diplomats in rotation for some time now, but unless that is done, there is NO WAY to prevent such meetings. And is one diplomat is expelled, another picks up the torch. And the same goes for US diplomats in other countries -- like most diplomats, they are an open-minded bunch.
"Kaivey, you are terribly naive."
At least somebody FINALLY said it!!! LOL!!!!!
But i would say, Marion, that the US would be terribly suspicious of both Russian or Chinese diplomats meeting Occupy, or any other movement that opposes Washington power, don't you think. I would say that it is you that is terribly naive not to suspect the US is up to mischief after its track record.
I'm not going to become a wise old buzzard, like Matt Franko, who says a bit of war is alright as long as someone is making a some money out of it. What's a few thousand dead, here and there, he has said in the past.
Kaivey, please read what I said. I did not say that the US was not involved in supporting the Hong Kong protests. What I said is that is that a picture of a diplomat meeting protestors is essentially meaningless in itself.
However, you might consider that the Hong Kong protests are not Maidan, and that the Chinese government is far more violent and oppressive than Yanukovich's democratic kleptocracy ever was. I think you would find it helpful to rely a little bit less on good guy/bad guy dichotomies, and broad ideological statements in your analysis of events. I generally am on your side in your posts, and there is good reason to systematize for a general understanding of the world, but it is more helpful to view each event in its own terms first.
I would not call supporting Hong Kong protestors mischief, by the way (just so there is no misunderstanding my position). AND I would call the US role in organizing the putsch that ended Maidan mischief. See -- judging each event on its own merits, and in its own moral context.
From Tom's post above.
''Washington has taken umbrage that Julie’s cover has been blown. She is apparently an expert who organised “colour revolutions” in other countries and it has been disclosed that she was involved in plotting “subversive acts” in the Middle East region.'
Good guy, bad guy again.
And I don't support the Hong Kong protestors.
There is not even any democracy in the West. Once those protestors get democracy, the US will take the lot.
Corbyn could have offered a real alternative but they have destroyed him. If the media coverage had reflected on Corbyn’s good points, he would be flying high in the polls.
I see dead people.
Post a Comment