So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
“The Biden administration will also make it a top priority to address the widespread human rights abuses of the Chinese government’s forced labour programme that targets the Uygurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region and elsewhere in the country,” the report said.
What? That's incredibly strong language, what are you talking about?
wrong government
Ah ok. Trudeau's uselessness seems off-topic, given that this is the US Foreign Policy thread.
So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
Nah. It's realising that sometimes you can't just do whatever you want without consequence. It's the same way your boss can be a complete dick to you but you can't tell him that because you need the job. Much of the time there's multiple competing things at work in these kind of decisions and you have to balance various wants and needs against each other.
Yes and he's critiquing your priorities while you keep repeating that there are priorities.
No, that's not at all what being said as far as I can see. The specific trade-offs in the Saudi Arabia situation were gone over upthread and basically just ignored. Despite Mazzyx making an extensive and quite informative post on it.
So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
“The Biden administration will also make it a top priority to address the widespread human rights abuses of the Chinese government’s forced labour programme that targets the Uygurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region and elsewhere in the country,” the report said.
What? That's incredibly strong language, what are you talking about?
wrong government
Ah ok. Trudeau's uselessness seems off-topic, given that this is the US Foreign Policy thread.
[shrugs] shryke’s the one who brought it to the table
So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
Nah. It's realising that sometimes you can't just do whatever you want without consequence. It's the same way your boss can be a complete dick to you but you can't tell him that because you need the job. Much of the time there's multiple competing things at work in these kind of decisions and you have to balance various wants and needs against each other.
But neither of these nations hold the same power dynamic as an employee and their boss.
Again, it’s fucking cowardice to not call a genocide a genocide.
Call Genocide Genocide. Call Apartheid Apartheid. As long as you hold power, you have the obligation to wield it on behalf of human rights, first and foremost. To do anything less is cowardice, even if it is outside of your power to safely end the abuse. At the very least you can speak to the issue for what it is.
So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
Nah. It's realising that sometimes you can't just do whatever you want without consequence. It's the same way your boss can be a complete dick to you but you can't tell him that because you need the job. Much of the time there's multiple competing things at work in these kind of decisions and you have to balance various wants and needs against each other.
But neither of these nations hold the same power dynamic as an employee and their boss.
Again, it’s fucking cowardice to not call a genocide a genocide.
Call Genocide Genocide. Call Apartheid Apartheid. As long as you hold power, you have the obligation to wield it on behalf of human rights, first and foremost. To do anything less is cowardice, even if it is outside of your power to safely end the abuse. At the very least you can speak to the issue for what it is.
Congratulations, because you had to be Right right now relations go down hill and there is a nuclear war 20 years later if not earlier. Was it worth it?
I think its more wondering how strongly worded letters would force China to do anything.
Given the level of nationalism, the 100 years of humiliation, and the fact they their government will run over protesters with tanks how will simply calling their genocide what it is help? Whats step two?
Cause the course you are suggesting Lanz has a ton of downsides and won't change things. Given that you accused shryke of not caring about people,how will your suggested actions help the people of China. What is the end, how do we get there?
The issue with the PRC is that nobody wants to call them out on what is a fucking horrific regime cos they have such dominance over regional and global trade
But at some point we are going to have to call out China on their bullshit, for purely practical reasons if nothing else
The issue with the PRC is that nobody wants to call them out on what is a fucking horrific regime cos they have such dominance over regional and global trade
But at some point we are going to have to call out China on their bullshit, for purely practical reasons if nothing else
Am I the only one reading what the Biden admin is actually saying? Like, seriously.
So how many dead Uighurs is the price of world trade?
A thousand?
Ten thousand?
Hundred thousand?
How many are y’all comfortable with for a broken Omelas to keep on trucking?
How many of these posts are you going to make before you accept that we don't live in an Ideal world and their isn't really a viable solution to a country like china tormenting it's citizens; it's simply too powerful of a state for you to behaviorally correct and after the last administration the current one has even less of a chance to influence Xi.
This one was sparked by shryke’s post about the Canadian government refusing to even call genocide a genocide, where the conversation following was we can’t even use the term officially at the nation-state level because that might disrupt global trade agreements.
It’s bullshit, it’s cowardice, and I stand by the post
It is bullshit. It's also the way things are and going for an ethically puritanical approach to things will accomplish nothing aside from mildly irritating china.
The issue with the PRC is that nobody wants to call them out on what is a fucking horrific regime cos they have such dominance over regional and global trade
But at some point we are going to have to call out China on their bullshit, for purely practical reasons if nothing else
Am I the only one reading what the Biden admin is actually saying? Like, seriously.
No, in this case the Biden policy is good
But at the same time there’s still disagreement because the argument is being made that it’s too risky to anger China over it, separate from the US stance of “this is genocide”
There's a version of this whole thing where for the last 4 years the US wasn't abandoning it's allies and undermining strategic alliances in favor of dictators like Xi. In that version of the world, we might actually be able to apply pressure China can't ignore, and individual powers in the region wouldn't feel like they were likely to take a potentially major economic hit for what essentially amounts to a feelgood message that changes nothing.
That's not the case. Instead we're stuck with "whatever happens, 4 years from now the US will be trying to screw us in free trade agreements while cozying up to China when it bribes the president specifically".
The Biden administration is just using the Uighurs as a rhetorical cudgel to beat China with and their declarations should not be taken seriously, or at least not literally. I mean this is the same page where Blinken vows steadfast allegiance to Israel and declares the administration's opposition to any ICC investigation of Israeli conduct regarding "the Palestinian situation." It would require immense cognitive dissonance to take their statements on China at face value. As usual, what the US government says about human rights issues abroad should either be ignored entirely or interpreted through a lens of extreme cynicism. Washington opposes China on economic and geopolitical grounds, so Washington starts talking about the Uighurs. Improving the lives of people in Xinjiang province is entirely unrelated to the actual goal of such statements, which are uttered to muster domestic and international hostility towards China in order to more easily oppose their economic and geopolitical ambitions.
Deep in a live tweet thread for ambassador Sherman’s confirmation. The obvious: what Biden is after is a renegotiation, not the 2015 deal. This is why that whole dance about Iran needing to go first in reimplementing the deal is BS, they wouldn’t have lifted sanctions until they got their new demands as well.
Iran’s conservative daily newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz depicted Mr Nephew as Keanu Reeves from the film The Devil’s Advocate, with Mr Biden replacing Al Pacino, who played the Devil.
Wait, that title wasn’t metaphorical, it’s literally a movie about the devil? You learn something new everyday.
Or, perhaps, they view Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a different lens than the Chinese genocide?
It's just another example of ongoing ethnic cleansing. I'm having trouble imagining a moral framework that leads to being fine with one instance while being appalled by the other. The "different lens" you refer to is that Israel is viewed as a geopolitical ally while China is viewed as a foe or rival, so criticism of or opposition to Israel's ethnic cleansing must be blunted while criticism of and opposition to China's ethnic cleansing must be magnified.
The assumption you are making is that people view Israel as committing ethnic cleansing.
Again, not saying I agree with this before I get half a dozen zingers thrown at me. But if you accept that US policy makers view the situation differently it makes sense.
The Biden administration is just using the Uighurs as a rhetorical cudgel to beat China with and their declarations should not be taken seriously, or at least not literally. I mean this is the same page where Blinken vows steadfast allegiance to Israel and declares the administration's opposition to any ICC investigation of Israeli conduct regarding "the Palestinian situation." It would require immense cognitive dissonance to take their statements on China at face value. As usual, what the US government says about human rights issues abroad should either be ignored entirely or interpreted through a lens of extreme cynicism. Washington opposes China on economic and geopolitical grounds, so Washington starts talking about the Uighurs. Improving the lives of people in Xinjiang province is entirely unrelated to the actual goal of such statements, which are uttered to muster domestic and international hostility towards China in order to more easily oppose their economic and geopolitical ambitions.
I think it's much more coherent to view it as both at once. Like, the Biden admin is full of real people like you and me who are likely appalled by what is going on with the Uyghurs. I would be shocked if there weren't also people who felt strongly about the Palestinian issue there either.
But everything that comes out of governments wrt foreign policy especially is filtered through various competing goals and constraints in their foreign policy. Their current approach towards China means that calling out genocide over their is easier and less costly. Whereas current relations with Israel make it a problem, so you don't. Or the way you can only do so much about MBS because SA is a strategic ally.
The only way to view these things as incompatible is to imagine a really simplistic framework for foreign policy without multiple, often overlapping or contradictory, goals. Which seems silly. In basically all sorts of places in life we make compromises in order to satisfy competing goals.
The assumption you are making is that people view Israel as committing ethnic cleansing.
Again, not saying I agree with this before I get half a dozen zingers thrown at me. But if you accept that US policy makers view the situation differently it makes sense.
But why would we accept this? They have all the information and expertise in the world in front of them. It seems almost impossible to be remotely well informed on this subject and not reach the conclusion that what is happening in the Occupied Territories is apartheid and gradual ethnic cleansing. It would be one thing if we were talking about some American with no education on the subject beyond what they see on cable news, who might legitimately be unaware of the nature of Israeli colonization of the West Bank, but to assume that level of ignorance on the part of Blinken and the government he represents beggars belief. It seems much safer to assume that they know what is happening and do not care very much than to assume that they have a perception of the situation that differs wildly from the easily observed reality.
I feel like the US has enough leverage that they could get Israel to at least slow the fuck down on the genocide, if they really wanted to.
Talk about mixed messages, when the son-in-law of the former president is the biggest private contributor to the settlers assisting in the ghettoization and displacement of the Palestinians in the West Bank.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I feel like the US has enough leverage that they could get Israel to at least slow the fuck down on the genocide, if they really wanted to.
Talk about mixed messages, when the son-in-law of the former president is the biggest private contributor to the settlers assisting in the ghettoization and displacement of the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Jared Kushner strikes me as the kind of person who would engage in a little genocide as a treat, and the profiting off it is just a bonus.
Cause Americans are primed to hate Arabs and accept the Israeli side.
That doesn't explain our good chums in Saudi Arabia.
I think someone else mentioned it earlier; mix of geography for deploying and controlling the region, plus the Cold War between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Washington leadership still hasn’t gotten over ‘79
Cause Americans are primed to hate Arabs and accept the Israeli side.
That doesn't explain our good chums in Saudi Arabia.
I think someone else mentioned it earlier; mix of geography for deploying and controlling the region, plus the Cold War between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Washington leadership still hasn’t gotten over ‘79
Arms industry is a big thing to consider too. The Saudis love spending hundreds of billions of dollars on fancy US weaponry, and powerful American corporations love that about them. Trump was, I think, the only president dumb enough to blatantly state this reasoning, but I'd be shocked if it didn't play a major role in US policy toward the KSA for all recent presidents.
Kaputa on
+13
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Deep in a live tweet thread for ambassador Sherman’s confirmation. The obvious: what Biden is after is a renegotiation, not the 2015 deal. This is why that whole dance about Iran needing to go first in reimplementing the deal is BS, they wouldn’t have lifted sanctions until they got their new demands as well.
Iran’s conservative daily newspaper Vatan-e Emrooz depicted Mr Nephew as Keanu Reeves from the film The Devil’s Advocate, with Mr Biden replacing Al Pacino, who played the Devil.
Wait, that title wasn’t metaphorical, it’s literally a movie about the devil? You learn something new everyday.
"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."
- Judge Smails
And it's nice to see that the USA is pulling a "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." That should do wonders to repair our damaged reputation in the world of international affairs.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Natasha Bertrand, White House Politico Reporter/MSNBC Contributor: New: POTUS intends to work with Congress to repeal the AUMFs that have underpinned U.S. military operations across the globe for the past two decades, and negotiate a new one that reins in America’s foreign wars, the White House said Friday.
So not only did Biden call off a second strike because of worries of civilian casualties, he's also totally for stripping the current AUMF's.
Today Venezuelan Interim President @jguaido and I discussed our unwavering support for democracy in Venezuela and our efforts to improve the lives of the Venezuelan people.
He's not even in the Senate anymore as I recall. He has no legitimate claim to power.
Guaidó, who last year declared illegitimate the rule of Nicolás Maduro and swore himself in as the country's chief executive, had been expected to be re-elected as chief of the legislature. Instead, inside the palace, a little-known congressman named Luis Parra, was named to the role by a skeleton assembly of pro-government lawmakers. The decision came amid chaos inside the chamber, and without the session being formally declared open.
Constitutional experts and members of the Venezuelan opposition supporting Guaidó have said Parra's appointment is a sham. They cite National Assembly rules which require a quorum for the body to open for business. In the absence of a minimum number of lawmakers -- many of whom were blocked from entering the building -- procedure requires the National Assembly to form a "Preparatory Commission" to find ways to reactivate a voting session.
Parra was a member of the pro-Guaido opposition party Primero Justicia (Justice First) until December 2019, when a corruption scandal saw him ejected from the party.
Posts
Ah ok. Trudeau's uselessness seems off-topic, given that this is the US Foreign Policy thread.
No, that's not at all what being said as far as I can see. The specific trade-offs in the Saudi Arabia situation were gone over upthread and basically just ignored. Despite Mazzyx making an extensive and quite informative post on it.
[shrugs] shryke’s the one who brought it to the table
But neither of these nations hold the same power dynamic as an employee and their boss.
Again, it’s fucking cowardice to not call a genocide a genocide.
Call Genocide Genocide. Call Apartheid Apartheid. As long as you hold power, you have the obligation to wield it on behalf of human rights, first and foremost. To do anything less is cowardice, even if it is outside of your power to safely end the abuse. At the very least you can speak to the issue for what it is.
Congratulations, because you had to be Right right now relations go down hill and there is a nuclear war 20 years later if not earlier. Was it worth it?
Given the level of nationalism, the 100 years of humiliation, and the fact they their government will run over protesters with tanks how will simply calling their genocide what it is help? Whats step two?
Cause the course you are suggesting Lanz has a ton of downsides and won't change things. Given that you accused shryke of not caring about people,how will your suggested actions help the people of China. What is the end, how do we get there?
Also how little anyone has Canada’s back in the Huawei dispute that I believe China is still punishing Canada for backing the USA’s play.
MWO: Adamski
But at some point we are going to have to call out China on their bullshit, for purely practical reasons if nothing else
Am I the only one reading what the Biden admin is actually saying? Like, seriously.
It is bullshit. It's also the way things are and going for an ethically puritanical approach to things will accomplish nothing aside from mildly irritating china.
No, in this case the Biden policy is good
But at the same time there’s still disagreement because the argument is being made that it’s too risky to anger China over it, separate from the US stance of “this is genocide”
That's not the case. Instead we're stuck with "whatever happens, 4 years from now the US will be trying to screw us in free trade agreements while cozying up to China when it bribes the president specifically".
Quincy Responsible Statecraft Center.
Also, new appointment, Richard Nephew as the deputy special envoy to Iran. A sanctions expert. And this post, via Iranian journalist Karami.
The height of a certain kind of American aspiration, to be sad while “imposing human costs.” Somber little monster. Anyways, more here.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/the-americas/biden-s-appointment-of-sanctions-architect-richard-nephew-met-with-criticism-in-iran-1.1177099
Wait, that title wasn’t metaphorical, it’s literally a movie about the devil? You learn something new everyday.
Again, not saying I agree with this before I get half a dozen zingers thrown at me. But if you accept that US policy makers view the situation differently it makes sense.
I think it's much more coherent to view it as both at once. Like, the Biden admin is full of real people like you and me who are likely appalled by what is going on with the Uyghurs. I would be shocked if there weren't also people who felt strongly about the Palestinian issue there either.
But everything that comes out of governments wrt foreign policy especially is filtered through various competing goals and constraints in their foreign policy. Their current approach towards China means that calling out genocide over their is easier and less costly. Whereas current relations with Israel make it a problem, so you don't. Or the way you can only do so much about MBS because SA is a strategic ally.
The only way to view these things as incompatible is to imagine a really simplistic framework for foreign policy without multiple, often overlapping or contradictory, goals. Which seems silly. In basically all sorts of places in life we make compromises in order to satisfy competing goals.
Cause Americans are primed to hate Arabs and accept the Israeli side.
Also yes, some of our policy makers in the highest of positions are racist idiots.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Talk about mixed messages, when the son-in-law of the former president is the biggest private contributor to the settlers assisting in the ghettoization and displacement of the Palestinians in the West Bank.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
That doesn't explain our good chums in Saudi Arabia.
Jared Kushner strikes me as the kind of person who would engage in a little genocide as a treat, and the profiting off it is just a bonus.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think someone else mentioned it earlier; mix of geography for deploying and controlling the region, plus the Cold War between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Washington leadership still hasn’t gotten over ‘79
"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."
- Judge Smails
And it's nice to see that the USA is pulling a "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." That should do wonders to repair our damaged reputation in the world of international affairs.
So not only did Biden call off a second strike because of worries of civilian casualties, he's also totally for stripping the current AUMF's.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/03/a-letter-on-the-continuation-of-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-venezuela/
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The sanctions will continue until morale improves.
Even I can't be convinced that Venezuela poses a threat to our national security.
And the Secretary of State is calling Guaido “interim president”
It was a neat trick when they tried it, but I don't think that whole thing is going to work at this late date. Not to mention it's a rerun.
It’s dispiriting to see them pulling pages from the Trump admin
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/americas/venezuela-national-assembly-vote-intl/index.html
Did he term out?