105
Beijing shrugs at U.S. call for help protecting Red Sea shipping (www.politico.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

The Chinese government appears to be brushing off Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s call for Beijing to assist an international coalition in protecting commercial shipping in the Red Sea from Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militias.

Beijing signaled that it has no interest in joining the Pentagon’s Operation Prosperity Guardian , a multinational force including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain, in providing security for cargo ships under threat of Houthi attack.

“We believe relevant parties, especially major countries with influence, need to play a constructive and responsible role in keeping the shipping lanes safe in the Red Sea,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Thursday in an indirect reference to U.S. military and diplomatic heft in the region.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the Suez Crisis of the 21st century. Chinese companies like OOCL are unaffected by conditions in the Red Sea and are still able to freely transit, so why should China care?

Edit: looks like in light of the US announcing Operation "Three Aircraft Carriers in the Red Sea", Hong Kong's OOCL and Taiwan's Evergreen have also now suspended shipments through the Red Sea. A few days ago, they had just suspended shipments to Israel and operated as per usual.

Truly, contributing to the security of the region by making sure that the few companies who could transit the Red Sea without being at risk are now at risk of getting caught in the crossfire.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Honestly they're right. Everyone knows why this is happening and it's because of Israel's genocide in Palestine. The US wants to support that genocide, but that's not China's business.

[-] test113@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.

Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you'll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.

That's why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won't significantly change the priority list.

The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what's happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the "9/11 card," and the USA would allow and support it.

Just to be clear, I neither support any form of "genocide" nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.

If you believe China's reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it's improbable, considering China isn't known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China's agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn't make it morally superior.

Example here: Uyghur genocide.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable,

Yeah that's true. I meant: The US has no grounds asking China for help with "maintaining peace in the Middle East". I'm more objecting to the article's way of putting it, like it does here

China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.

While I definitely don't like China, "help us protect our genocidal ally from the consequences of their actions" isn't something I'd expect or want them to agree to, either.

There's no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.

[-] test113@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.

Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there's no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.

I agree; China's best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn't particularly interested in helping causes that don't further their goals. More "chaos" in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target.

These attacks were made with the stated intent of stopping international shipping from reaching Israel. Basically a DIY sea blockade in response to the war in Gaza. The only sane response to America's request here is "clean up your own mess", which is what China did. That's what I'm saying: This is Israel, and therefore America's, mess.

[-] test113@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I get your point and understand where you're coming from. I think you're right from a certain perspective.

But I want to add that it doesn't matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it's just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won't spiral is crucial for stability.

Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.

I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Chaos in the Middle East would be devastating for the CCP. The existence of China as a modern nation is a dependent upon energy exports and trade which traverses this region.

They don’t have the ability to project power much beyond their first island chain. They certainly could not sustain for any length of time.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

There’s no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.

It's one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, which China uses to send its goods to the West. I feel like protecting that major trade route would be a geopolitical reason for China to step up. I get that they are currently targeting Israel's allies in the attacks, but sometimes mistakes happen and sometimes rebel groups don't share the same goals as their financial backers.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

A good amount of the shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz is between China and Europe. It’s only fair that China do its fair share of the lifting.

I do find it ironic that the CCP systematically opposes the country that patrols and keeps the world’s shipping lanes open for international trade. Trade which ensures the continued existence of the CCP.

[-] Ember4274@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Houtis are targeting Israeli linked ships, not Chinese ships

That is not the strait of Hormuz, grab a map before formulating an opinion on such a complex matter

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Why bless your heart. What a wonderfully simple world view.

To imagine that a country which is dependent upon trade shouldn’t have a stake in keeping a trade route with its second largest trading block free from attacks.

It must be blissful to be so unaware of the impact that attacks on that area will have on shipping and insurance.

You must sleep very soundly at night.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

My theory on the Hamas attack is that they mostly intended to take hostages to negotiate the release of Palestinians being held by Israel. They do that all the time. They expected to meet with a large military response and take mostly non-civilian hostages (as they’ve done in the past since IDF soldiers are high value hostages).

But Israel had shifted so much of their security forces to the West Bank that Hamas met with basically no effective resistance and ended up getting further into Israel than they ever planned.

I’m not saying Hamas was above killing civilians. But think we’ll learn one day that they were imagining more like 50-100 civilian deaths to draw a fight and then as many police and military hostages as they could muster. Most of the Hamas fighters probably expected to die just escaping Gaza.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

My theory on the Hamas attack is that they mostly intended to take hostages to negotiate the release of Palestinians being held by Israel.

Yeah that's usually the case with these. Also add in getting some concessions out of Israel.

[-] test113@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting perspective, but these attacks were different from what they did before. I can see the argument that the Israeli government downplayed their preparedness to make Hamas's attack more devastating than if they had taken it seriously from the beginning. This tactic could then be used to partially legitimize retaliation and the subsequent siege of Gaza.

There are too many factors at play for this to be a "normal" Hamas attack gone wrong. The scale and preplanned targets suggest it was not an "ordinary" Hamas operation.

While I usually agree that the simplest solution is often the right one, do you really believe this was more or less a "normal" attack that spiraled out of control?

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I obviously don’t have any insider information. It definitely seems like it was planned to be on a different level than past attacks.

Something else I’ve been wondering about is just how asymmetric warfare is easier now with cheap drones and better weapons. Maybe even satellite imagery since you can just buy it now. Hamas might have always wanted to do something this big and just couldn’t.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Sooo groups of people thousands of miles away from the conflict who have no direct involvement in said conflict attacking the shipping of neutral parties is somehow justified….

Concurrently it is somehow the fault of the US for supporting Israel… even though Israel has no involvement in the state of affairs within Yemen.

That is some amazing mental gymnastics.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's not "justified" it is "understandable". And yes, the shit that is happening there is a direct result of the genocide happening in Gaza. It also is the fault of the US - seeing how they are able to end the genocide if they wanted to. Still, they don't, with the president calling himself a "zionist" openly.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Sooo groups of people thousands of miles away from the conflict who have no direct involvement in said conflict attacking the shipping of neutral parties is somehow justified….

Uh... Yes, that's exactly the case. The attacks were made with the stated aim of isolating Israel economically. It's very much a kosher war tactic, and to the people of Yemen (or at least the Houthis) it definitely seems like they consider the genocide of Gazans enough of a casus bellus.

[-] Justas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

The reality is that the Chinese have very limited power projection capabilities and could not help anyone in the Red Sea if their future depended on it.

[-] Why9@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? There's no evidence for this whatsoever.

The US asking for China's help is also a way of getting China to reveal what kind of arsenal it has at its disposal. China staying out if it makes perfect sense.

This conflict would stop if the US stopped supplying Israel, and condemned them and imposed sanctions on them. Following an Israeli ceasefire, the houthis would have no reason to continue their attacks and the problem would be resolved.

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
105 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39395 readers
2293 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world