RT
Russia & China’s partnership not only about ‘containing’American aggression, also vital for creation of multi-polar world order
Glenn Diesen | Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal
Related
China goes on the attack. Slavery next?
China Rebuts US Charge of Xinjiang 'Genocide' By Saying 95% of Native Americans Were Wiped Out
Saying that 95 % of indigenous peoples in the US (or Canada) were wiped out -- pretty much a factual claim -- is essentially and admission that the Chinese are torturing and disappearing and committing cultural genocide against the Uighurs. Basically the line is -- "you were even worse so just shut up." But that does not diminish the damage to Uighurs now occurring.
ReplyDeleteActually, Uighur history is as longstanding as the Native Americans. The Uighars have been a recalcitrant people at least since the Qing Dynasty. The Americans wiped out the Native Americans, while the Uighars at least live on.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that Xinjiang is populated by a tradition people bent on secession from China. China objects. The Chinese analysis is that the problem is two-fold, first religious, in that the Uighars have been "propagandized" by Islamic militants to jihad. Secondly, the problem is economic, in that the Uighars have been been sufficiently integrated into Chinese society, like non-whites in the US and much of the West.
How does the US deal with Islamic militants. Guantanamo.
Here is a comment I posted elsewhere recently.
ReplyDeleteWhile I applaud human rights, national security is the trump card. For China, Taiwan, HK, Tibet and Xinjiang are strategically vital. The Chinese will do what it takes, including going to war, to protect what it perceives as vital strategic interests. These are red lines. The US can badger China all it wants on this, to no avail.
Conversely, it is in the interest of the US to pry these strategic points away from China and one wonders if human rights is a way of veiling the real agenda.
This has been the basis of liberal internationalism (Wilsonianism) that is the foundation of liberal interventionism and foreign policy idealism (which has become a pillar of neo-imperialism and neocolonialism). Conversely the Jacksonian stance on foreign policy is “America First.” This is the basis of foreign policy realism.
That is to say, it is complicated. And the history of the region is deeply involved.
I am an idealist aspirationally and a realist practically. It is never good to conflate wishful thinking with reality. This conflation leads to magical thinking.
Most people don't care about foreign policy, and round about zero have any influence on it. What happens to the Uyghurs is up to the players involved.
ReplyDeleteAs ordinary citizens, we are not involved. We are spectators.
Making apologies for China's government says everything about your politics, and nothing about the situation in terms of human rights. Treating Uyghurs as characters in someone else's morality play is also disgusting.
There are plenty of human rights abuses going on in the world, and they are rarely brought up on this blog. That too speaks volumes.
That area is the water source.. ie they’re not going to be allowed to separate...
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of human rights abuses going on in the world, and they are rarely brought up on this blog. That too speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe begin at home, where one might actually have an effect, however minuscule?
Being an American, how 'bout we start with US sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Syria, etc. that are aimed at civilian populations — which is in contravention of international law in that these economic sanctions violate basic human rights to survival?
And illegal aggression that has killed, maimed, displaced, and other wise injured many thousands of civilians "to protect their human rights"?
Maybe begin at home, where one might actually have an effect, however minuscule?
ReplyDeleteWell, why don't you?
You can also post articles about US repression at home, upon its own citizens.
“ in contravention of international law”
ReplyDeletesanction (n.) early 15c., "confirmation or enactment of a law," from Latin sanctionem (nominative sanctio) "act of decreeing or ordaining," also "decree, ordinance," noun of action from past-participle stem of sancire "to decree, confirm, ratify, make sacred" (see saint (n.)).
Yo a sanction is a law....
Yo a sanction is a law....
ReplyDeleteSanctions involve national law regarding the imposition of sanctions and most significantly the implementation. The way that the US is applying sanctions contravenes international law by targeting civilian populations to create unrest in the aid of regime change by weakening the government's support.
You can also post articles about US repression at home, upon its own citizens
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin. Maybe the disproportionate incarceration rate in comparison with other countries, where the prison population is also predominantly non-white.
To sum it up, the British legal system refused to extradite Julian Assange owing to prison conditions in the US, while a UN official accused the Brits of torturing him.
China and Russia are tired of receiving the brunt of US hypocrisy in geopolitics and are starting to hit back. The US cries, "unfair."
The so-called war on drugs is a good place to begin.
ReplyDeleteMandatory minimums in sentencing.
Disproportionate sentences when adjusted for race and income levels.
Threatening the innocent into accepting plea bargains.
Not sure if the Brits are pulling a delay maneuver.
If they won't extradite, why wasn't Assange released?
China and Russia are tired of receiving the brunt of US hypocrisy in geopolitics and are starting to hit back.
ReplyDeleteIncoming.
Chief of Major Chinese Paper Accuses Australia of ‘Genocide’ of Its Aborigines Amid Uyghur Criticism
This is aimed in particular at the (non-white) Global South and East where China and Russia are competing with the extended (white) empire, that is, the US and former European empires, chiefly British and French, which retain delusions of former grandeur.
Not sure if the Brits are pulling a delay maneuver.
ReplyDeleteIf they won't extradite, why wasn't Assange released?
Case on appeal. He was denied bail based on the judgment that he is a flight-risk. As long as he is being tortured, the elites are satisfied. The US would probably be OK with the Brits killing him. No need to be fussy.