- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
🥱
Removed by mod
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.
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?
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.
Yeah that’s usually the case with these. Also add in getting some concessions out of Israel.