That move itself was unusual for a government that rarely feels the need to explain itself retroactively. But on Syria, Chinese leaders appeared unusually sensitive to suggestions that they may have been insensitive to an unfolding humanitarian crisis. Referring to the U.S. as “the military giant,” the paper wrote in February 2012:
“Even if it stays for a while, it will not take protecting lives of local civilians as its primary task. The tragedies that have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved it.
“Using violence to prevent humanitarian disasters sounds just and responsible. However, aren't the attacks and explosions that have occurred after the regime changes in the two countries humanitarian disasters?”
Needless to say, many Western critics weren't convinced that China and Russia had blocked the UN resolution out of humanitarian motives. Writers tended to highlight that a desire to maintain a limited but critical sphere of influence in the Middle East drove China’s policy of non-intervention in Syria (and other countries). Over the last week, as evidence of chemical-weapon use against Syrian civilians has driven calls for military action, that notion has returned -- much to the irritation of China’s most prominent Communist Party-owned newspapers and commentators.
The conflict between China’s demand to protect its interests in this region and its lack of influence there, and that Beijing is simply pursuing the principle of prompting a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which should not be complicated by any external military intervention.
In the meantime, Global Times newspaper in China has found a proxy to represent China’s interests: Russia. “Russia must not let the United States comfortably win this war,” it wrote. “Russia should mobilize their capabilities, maximizing the cost of the war for the Americans so that American society has as many negative memories of ‘surgical warfare’ as possible.”
Chinese analysts insist that Western policy toward Syria reflects a larger pattern of intervention in such strife-torn countries as Somalia, Iraq, and Libya that has resulted in greater chaos, violence, and hatred. Some accuse the West of using the pretext of “humanitarian intervention” to “smash governments it considers as threats to its so-called national interests and relentlessly replace them with those that are
Washington-friendly.”37 Similarly, some observers argue that the U.S. is pushing for the overthrow of the Syrian government in order to eliminate Iran’s only ally in the region and thereby increase pressure on Tehran.
Again, these are the highlights...
What do you think? It sounds like China has their head on straight, unlike the US. Obama is going to piss off Russia, and possibly China, then what? Another Cold War perhaps?? And do you think China is spot on about our involvement and agenda in these countries?
Answer by KTElite at 2:04 AM on Sep. 5, 2013
Answer by funlovinlady at 7:41 AM on Sep. 5, 2013
Answer by NotPanicking at 7:50 AM on Sep. 5, 2013
Answer by Ballad at 10:45 AM on Sep. 5, 2013