What Yemen has contributed is commendable, especially for their size, there’s no doubt about it. However, in the broader scope of your point about international law, that’s not really what they’re doing. What they’re doing is what they’re able to do in defense of their own regional interests and their allies in the region, which is the same kind of thing China did with Korea in the past. What recognition there is of the attacks against Palestine being a genocide helps legitimize the position Yemen takes, but they would still have reason to take it, even if what was happening to Palestine was not considered a genocide in its damage and scope.
Is Yemen over in the Congo? Are they out in the seas right now attacking US war ships to prevent oil from being stolen from Venezuela? Maybe if they had the capability to do so, they would be, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t. And it would be strange to expect them to be off in an area they don’t have strategic control over trying to fight a war of attrition.
What I’m trying to get at here is, there just isn’t any such thing as international law being consistently enforced by an anti-imperialist coalition. If such existed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because such a coalition would have intervened in Palestine long ago and in numerous other parts of the world. “International law” is idea more than it is actual practice because it exists under the model of western imperial hegemony, which has terrorized the world for decades in post-WWII. To expect China to suddenly be enforcing international law when there is no precedent of it being consistently enforced in the first place, is a confusing and unfair standard to hold it to.
I’m trying to pull back the liberal decorum layer that says how nations are supposed to act and point at the mechanics of what some might call “realpolitik”, where nations and peoples are acting more out of raw pragmatism than out of strict moral code.
Prove me wrong if you have the evidence. Show me how international law has been consistently enforced in an anti-imperialist, ethical manner and show me how China in particular excuses itself from participating in that. I don’t think you can find any such evidence, but it seems pretty necessary for the legitimacy of the stance you are taking.
What Yemen has contributed is commendable, especially for their size, there’s no doubt about it. However, in the broader scope of your point about international law, that’s not really what they’re doing. What they’re doing is what they’re able to do in defense of their own regional interests and their allies in the region, which is the same kind of thing China did with Korea in the past. What recognition there is of the attacks against Palestine being a genocide helps legitimize the position Yemen takes, but they would still have reason to take it, even if what was happening to Palestine was not considered a genocide in its damage and scope.
Is Yemen over in the Congo? Are they out in the seas right now attacking US war ships to prevent oil from being stolen from Venezuela? Maybe if they had the capability to do so, they would be, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t. And it would be strange to expect them to be off in an area they don’t have strategic control over trying to fight a war of attrition.
What I’m trying to get at here is, there just isn’t any such thing as international law being consistently enforced by an anti-imperialist coalition. If such existed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because such a coalition would have intervened in Palestine long ago and in numerous other parts of the world. “International law” is idea more than it is actual practice because it exists under the model of western imperial hegemony, which has terrorized the world for decades in post-WWII. To expect China to suddenly be enforcing international law when there is no precedent of it being consistently enforced in the first place, is a confusing and unfair standard to hold it to.
I’m trying to pull back the liberal decorum layer that says how nations are supposed to act and point at the mechanics of what some might call “realpolitik”, where nations and peoples are acting more out of raw pragmatism than out of strict moral code.
Prove me wrong if you have the evidence. Show me how international law has been consistently enforced in an anti-imperialist, ethical manner and show me how China in particular excuses itself from participating in that. I don’t think you can find any such evidence, but it seems pretty necessary for the legitimacy of the stance you are taking.
💯 nicely put