Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com - News and information about Europe.
- !usa@midwest.social - News and information about United States of America.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
Explain which international laws China has broken in the last 5 years.
I will wait.
You know what they’ve been doing to Philippine vessels, right?
And then there’s the laws against compromising another country’s telephone system.
And a whole bunch of other laws. Essentially, if the US has broken an international law in the past 5 years, China has broken it in a less aggressive manner as a response.
And then of course there’s the illegal police stations in other countries and their treatment of Uyghurs at home.
Thing is, China has been very careful to break international law in ways that other countries of power are also doing, mostly the US.
That still doesn’t make it right.
So what you're saying is that China refuses to let international law be used in a way that allows the US to operate with complete impunity while the US romps around doing things that threaten others? Sounds like a pretty solid policy, honestly.
Their entire "claim" to the South China Sea, which completely disregards both international and maritime law. You can't lay claim to international waters...but try telling China that. They regularly harass and even attack boats from neighboring countries, that are operating within their own coastal economic zones.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not defending the US in any way...but China is the last country with any credible right to criticize other countries for playing fast and loose with maritime laws.
The usa and it's allies are financing the genocides in sudan and palestine
Cool. What does that have to do with China claiming to own international waters?
We were talking about international laws in general. What's worse than genocides of the scale of Gaza and Sudan?
The most brutal blockades are also by the USA's allies. The UAE backing the RSF, who have a blockade on controlled cities, the blockade in Cuba by the USA, and the blockade by Israel in Gaza are the two longest blockades currently in place.
80% of Gaza’s children report living with depression, grief, and fear. More than half of Gaza’s children have contemplated suicide. That's before 2023
China is also committing a lot of abuses but not at the USA and its ally level.
Israel kidnap and attack fishman on palestinians water too
That's a whole lot of whataboutism to deflect from the point I was making.
To be clear...as I said previously...I'm not defending the US.
I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is that China is calling them out. The fact that Russia is saying it too, is equally hilarious. It's like watching a bunch of career criminals all calling each other crooks. It's about as disingenuous as it gets.
It's not whataboutism . You said China is worse than the usa is not respecting international laws and maritime laws. I gave you all the evidence of why I think the usa ia worth.
Yes it is hilarious when China and Russia claim to care about inteenational laws but it is even more hilarious when the USA and it's ally claim it. Like canada claiming to want a two state solution in Gaza at the same time allowing selling of occupied land in Synaguoges and allowing an IDF soldier to talk in an University
I never said China was worse...only that they're also violating the very same laws they're criticizing the US for violating. If the hypocrisy wasn't so on-the-nose, I wouldn't have said anything...but this is just laughable.
No, your argument was more than just China being hypocritical which i agree with you on that. You said China is the last country who should talk about international and maritine laws. I think the usa is the last since they are worse than China but doesn't makes China better
Shouldn't the worse be the last to talk about it?
"The worst" is the subject of their criticism. Are you expecting them to criticize themselves? Because if they did, that would be a rare example of self-awareness on their part...not an act of hypocrisy.
But considering China has been blatantly and willfully violating the neutrality of international waters for years now, it is surprising they don't see their own hypocrisy here. A fitting analogy would be Russia criticizing Israel for stealing land from Palestinians. Sure, you can make some arguments about the scale of the comparison...but it's basically a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario, all the same.
The US blockade in cuba is 60 years old. The usa as a funder of israel occupation is responsible of the 19 years blockade in Gaza and the kidnapping and murdering of Palestinian fishmen
Again China is terrible but the usa is worse
Lol! Ummm, yeah. You get that those examples are not the same thing, though...right? The US isn't actually "blockading" Cuba with military vessels in order to prevent traffic to and from the country. Don't get me wrong...what they're doing to Cuba is wrong. But it has nothing to do with illegally policing international waters.
And bringing up Israel, when talking about China / US similarities, is also not applicable. They have nothing to do with either situation. They're committing their own crimes, completely independent of those being committed by China and the US.
This is what makes it "whataboutism".
Why does it matter for you if the blockade involve the military or not? At the end of the day the effects on Cubans are real and goes against international laws.
The usa is envolved in the blockade of gaza it is not whataboutism, you are being ridiculous. With your rhetoric all your comments are whataboutism since the article is about china position on the attack on Venezuela
Sanctions don't necessarily violate international laws. And particularly in Cuba's case, they don't actually prevent anyone other than the United States from trading with Cuba. As far as I recall, the only other country that is actively participating in the "Cuban blockade", is Israel. The point being...the "blockade" is almost entirely symbolic, unless you believe that trade with the US is somehow the only way Cuba can sustain itself.
But, again...none of this has anything to do with China's recent criticism of US actions in the Caribbean...which is what I was responding to with my comment. The reason I keep calling your arguments "whataboutism", is because none of them have anything to do with the context of either my statements, or the statements that China made, that I was responding to. If China was talking about Cuba...sure...then Cuba is part of that conversation. If China was bringing up Israel...sure...lets talk about Israel. But they weren't talking ab out any of those things. The only reason we're talking about them at all, is because you keep swinging back to them, despite them having nothing to do with what I was responding to.
You just bringing them up to say, "but, whatabout this thing that the US did that was really bad?", and "whatabout that other thing the US did that was also bad?" Why not bring up WW2 while you're at it? Or Vietnam? How about Nixon? Or Ronald Reagan? Those guys were terrible too. Whatabout we talk about the entire history of the US, and see if that distracts from the specific context that this entire conversation was actually about?
The majority of the international community consider the sanctions on cuba to be illegal.
You seem to be really invested in discussing what you consider to be whataboutism as if you don't have any issue with it.
You decided to mentionning the theme of hypocrisy and china being the last country to talk about international laws so it is fair for me to want to extend on on that theme. It is not whataboutism. Whataboutism goal is to deflect from the valid critisism but i always try in my comments to keep the idea that China of not respecting international laws and being hypocritical about it either
You know there's "context" here though, right? I was responding directly to the article this post is about.
Wanting to talk about everything else, is what makes it "whataboutism". Whataboutism's goal is to change the subject. It's a form of deflection. It's the introduction of a wide range of unrelated details, that have nothing to do with the original point being made.
This is your original comment. The point you were making is LITERALLY whataboutism.
The US is factually violating international law. China called them out. You said "but what about China violating international law".
It doesn't get much more whataboutism than that. So let me continue you the trend here.
You think the commenter you were replying to is doing a whataboutism? What about your whataboutism?!
I don't think you know what "whataboutism" means, then. It's when you deflect to something unrelated, instead of focusing on the topic in question. In this case, the topic in question was LITERALLY China accusing the US of violating international law, specifically in regards to maritime law.
There is no better irony, than China...who is currently violating international law, specifically in regards to maritime law...criticizing the US for doing exactly the same thing. See, how I didn't change the subject? It was LITERALLY the subject already.
Pointing out someone's hypocrisy isn't whataboutism, if the subject is the same. Otherwise the entire concept of calling out hypocrisy would be considered a logical fallacy. It's only whataboutism, if you are bringing up unrelated topics in order to change the subject.
The topic was actually the US violating international law. Your comment was, paraphrased "but what about China violating international law?!", which is literally exactly the context under which the word whataboutism was coined - when the US accused the USSR of doing bad things and the USSR called out the hypocrisy of the US, the anglosphere coined the term whataboutism.
It's literally the definition.
There are much better ironies than China causing the US of violating international law, chief among them is the US accusing China of violating international law, because the US has been doing for far longer and in far more brutal ways than China ever has.
Yes, pointing out hypocrisy is literally whataboutism when you are using is to distract from the crimes of the empire. The reality is that everyone, including countries that have violated international law, should be condemning the US for what it's doing and whether or not the condemners have violated international law is irrelevant and serves to minimize the topic at hand, which is the US seizing oil, and to advance sinophobic narratives, and to draw false equivalencies between horrible acts of murder, war crimes, piracy on the one hand and mild harassment on the other.
Ultimately, the greatest irony here is Westoids like you believing your opinions are well informed and not subject to foreign manipulation while being the most propagandized people in the planet.
Attack how? With munitions? Like they attack them with lethal force? That kind of attack?
Were maritime laws created with China involved or were they created by the Western Europeans who invaded China by sea and occupied their port cities for a century?
"Explain what international law they broke!"
"Well these"
"Those don't count"
Lol
By ramming fishing boats with military vessels.
And are you saying that China can just pick and choose which international laws it follows and which ones it doesn't? "Oh, we didn't agree to that one...so it doesn't apply to us."
No, I am saying the West has been weaponizing international law for centuries. The Doctrine of Discovery was international law in that it was a decree that courts in multiple nation relied on to justify genocide, slavery, and land dispossession. The US has established that it will subvert all social institutions up to and including training, arming, and transporting terrorists. It has also demonstrated that it has every intention of establishing a dominant presence encircling both China and Russia in the USA's insane quest to undermine MAD and win a nuclear war with a first strike decapitation. China is asserting its control over a specific region of the seas that are a national security priority given the US's constant beligerence. To say that China may not have such a presence and may not declare the region militarized due to internation law is the same thing as saying Biden can't do anything about Trump because he lacked the necessary legal procedures to do so. China is establishing it's national security boundary as its military assessment sees fit given the threat of the US surrounding it. I am not going lose sleep over China breaking international law about freedom of navigation in the waters nearest it's territory when the US is destroying a dozen countries at any given time.
That was a whole lot of words to say "USA bad for ignoring international law...but China good for ignoring it".
China's not good for ignoring it. China is violating international law in its attempt to establish its national security against the constant threats by the US and its allies.
The US violates international law to steal oil, traffick human slave, drugs, and weapons, train and arm terrorists, dump toxic waste in poor countries that can't defend themselves, and bomb whoever the fuck even thinks about running their own country.
These are not the same violations of international law.
It's like saying that guy violated the law when he pulled an illegal uturn while you're standing there with a rifle and 12 bodies at your feet.
Oh, so what China is doing is "bad"...but they're doing it for "good reasons"? I find it hard to believe that you don't see how disingenuous that argument is.
Americans have been hiding behind their own sense.of exceptionalism to justify all kinds of bad behavior. Small transgressions. Large ones. Doesn't matter. They have an excuse for all of it, because they think the rules don't apply to them. They think that because "(insert excuse here)", they have the right to ignore them.
All you're doing is making the same arguments that they do...you're just doing it for China instead of the US, and acting like it's SO different when China does it, because the US did it worse. It's not a valid argument.
Violating law is not inherently bad, no. We all know this. Laws do not have moral/ethical value. So what China is doing is in violation of international law, but that does not mean it's bad.
What the US does, as the world's most violent empire, is bad - not because it violates international law but because it is acting in the interest of total domination and subjugation of the world's people.
What China is doing in the SCS is very clearly in the interest of establishing its own national security against exactly the immoral behavior of the USA. Sure, harassment of fisherman feels like a terrible thing, but when we look at it in the full context, China is asserting its willingness to control a region of the waters and apply a consistent rule in those waters (no one has access) in an attempt to create conditions under which it can stop war ships from the US, UK, Japan, and other anti-Chinese powers from operating with impunity in those waters. And the reason it wants to be able to do that is because these countries have all raped and pillaged not only China but many of the countries that have coastlines on the SCS.
What the US is doing is, having successfully raped and pillaged multiple countries with shorelines on the SCS, attempting to say it has the right to peacefully move war ships including nuclear-capable submarines into the SCS because it's international waters and it doesn't matter if strategically that means China will have a gaping security hole in its national defense.
Again, it's like saying cryptography is illegal, and now that we've made it illegal, it is actually immoral to protect your home computers from hackers and then saying someone installing cryptography is just as wrong as the hackers stealing their data. It's total bullshit and you and people like you totally understand the concept of immoral laws and laws with immoral consequences when it involves concepts in your own ideology but you discard it immediately when it comes to the national defense of the West's military targets. You have to see how disingenuous this is.
Your entire premise is actually backwards. You are claiming that international laws are arbitrary, and don't have any "moral/ethical value". That is completely incorrect. They are based on common sense, fair practices that seek to reduce or eliminate conflict between nations. The entire point is to sustain a moral and ethical balance, where everyone's rights are respected.
It isn't the same thing as declaring cryptography illegal. That would be an example of an arbitrary law. In the case of international waters being open for anyone's use, it is anything but arbitrary. Other countries have every right to use those waters for trade and travel. Restricting their access to those waters represents an infringement on their rights.
What you're saying China had every right to do, directly violates someone else's right to do the same thing. That is why it is illegal. No one is out there in the South China Sea, stopping China from moving through the area, are they? No one is stopping them from sending ships past the North American coast to Panama either. The US has no right to patrol those waters and harass ships that use them...because those waters belong to everyone.
What the US is doing right now in the Caribbean however, IS illegal for exactly the same reason. It's even worse, because they're also just blowing up boats that they claim are transporting drugs...but even if all they were doing was seizing those vessels or harassing traffic through the area...they would still be violating the law.
It doesn't matter what justification they claimed they had, regarding their own "security"...they have no right to restrict other countries access to trade and travel, through territory that belongs to everyone.
Right, so your position is that everyone has to follow the rules even if doing so puts them in a weaker position that could be exploited by the USA, because defending against potential violations of international law by the USA which pose existential threats to your nation is not valid and instead the rights of fishermen trump the right to national self defense because we say so.
Ok, so did you not actually read my comment? I have no idea what you're even responding to here.
I literally said the US has no right to police international waters, no matter what their "justification". Just like you can't close the street in front of your house, just because you're worried that criminals might use it. It doesn't belong to you, and you can't prevent other people from using it just because you feel threatened.
I'm starting to be a little confused by your argument here. Are you in favor of the US's actions in the Caribbean? Because you seem to be making the argument that they have the right to "defend themselves" in this manner. Or is it just China that should be allowed to do stuff like this, and the US is still wrong?
The US isn't behaving defensively, it's behaving offensively. Maybe that's why you're confused about my position.
Let's take your example. Criminals on the street.
Let's say you're a black person in America living in a predominantly black neighborhood. Some neo-Nazis have been roving the streets for the last couple of years, robbing people, beating them up, breaking into homes, vandalizing homes, killing people, kidnapping and torturing people, etc.
But those neo-Nazis also own the newspapers and TV stations and they produce media saying that the black neighborhood you live in is a terrible place and needs to be cleaned up.
You and your neighbors beseech the police to protect you, but they do nothing.
So you and your neighbors take it on yourself to blockade the street to protect yourselves.
And then the neonazi news media says you're violating the law and then people on Lemmy argue that violating laws like this is terrible no matter what.
Do you get it now?