China accuses US and Europe of having 'hegemonistic' ambitions in Syria

[jakeXT]

BEIJING, China - The United States and Europe are "harbouring hegemonistic ambitions" in Syria, China's state news agency said Saturday, a day after Beijing was condemned at an international conference held to find a way to halt the Syrian regime's nearly year-old suppression of an anti-government uprising.

At the Friends of Syria meeting in Tunisia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blasted Russia and China as "despicable" for vetoing U.N. Security Council resolutions backing Arab League plans aimed at ending the conflict and condemning the crackdown by President Bashar Assad's government.

...

The official Xinhua News Agency said in a commentary that China's position on Syria was balanced and that "most of the Arab countries have begun to realize that the United States and Europe are hiding a dagger behind a smile."

"In other words, while they appear to be acting out of humanitarian concern, they are actually harbouring hegemonistic ambitions," it said.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/china-accuses-us-europe-having-hegemonistic-ambitions-syria-113706191.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

[dipsydoodle]

1. Sounds about right

.

[pampango]

2. "Both China and Russia boycotted the Friends of Syria conference...ended with a "broad consensus" on

avoiding a militarization of the conflict in Syria.

"The conference urged Assad to end the violence immediately and allow humanitarian aid into areas hit by his regime's crackdown. It also proposed tighter sanctions on the country and Assad's inner circle.

Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at several news conferences this week that China wanted more information on the goals and mechanisms of the conference before it would attend.

Xinhua quoted him as saying China was a friend of the Syrian people, and that "any action taken by the international community should help to cease tensions, boost political dialogues, resolve differences and maintain peace and stability in the Middle East."'

As a great friend of the Syrian people, perhaps China should take some initiative to help resolve the violence against their 'friends' rather than just vetoing this and boycotting that. You are a big country. Take some initiative.

"most of the Arab countries have begun to realize that the United States and Europe are hiding a dagger behind a smile." - Perhaps, but the Chinese spokesman offered little proof of this. I haven't notice the Arab League backing off on its condemnation of Assad and its efforts to end the violence against Syrians.

[secondvariety]

3. I don't need a lecture from China

on humanitarian issues.

[Arctic Dave]

7. And we are better then them?

How many civillians has China killed in other countries in the last decade?

[xxqqqzme]

17. 'than'

n/t

[ProgressoDem]

28. Um, not that many but that's not the only metric of humanitarianism.

I don't know whether to straight-up LOL or cry. You really think China is better than we are when it comes to humanitarian issues? Really?

[BadtotheboneBob]

4. Oh, Bullshit, China...

... The Arab League is practically begging the UN to do something about the slaughter. What I find ironic is that Western interference and/or intervention in the Middle East is decried, not without good reason, by the region's peoples except for when now they, the Middle Easterners, are powerless to fix a dire situation with one of their own members.

[dipsydoodle]

5. A section of the Arab League

more correctly - the Sunni states to be precise.

[BadtotheboneBob]

6. Which is 90% of the League

Only Iraq and Bahrain have Shi'a majorities out of the 22 members.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Obviously no bias then

[BadtotheboneBob]

10. So what's your point?

That you support Assad and the wanton killing of his own people? That the Sunnis are biased 'bad people' for wanting to stop it?

[leveymg]

11. The Sunnis (re, Saudis) have been trying to overthrow the Shi'ia Ba'ath regime by force for decades.

The Arab League is almost entirely Sunni, and they have hardly been "wanting to stop" the violence in Syria. They just want to overthrow the Shi'ia as the governing faction in Syria.

They're now closer than they have been at carrying this out (with the approval of the US and Europe) than at any time since the 1976-82 "long campaign of terrorism", which was the last Sunni armed uprising that was put down by force.

[BadtotheboneBob]

12. Be that as it may...

... what about the slaughter of innocents? Is the Alawite Assad Oligarchy a good thing?

[leveymg]

13. No, Assad is a bad guy, but so are the ones who are murdering people to replace him.

The killing is on both sides. It's a spasmatic civil war based in a centuries-old religious war, that may well turn out to be a genocidal war against the Shi'ia minority if this escalates with continued foreign involvement.

[BadtotheboneBob]

19. So, then, what's to be done?

Just stand back and let them go at it? Madam Secretary and the President want to help the anti-Assad faction. I just want to see the killing stopped. It seems that it's already become a genocidal situation. P.S. Thanks for the 'civilized' discussion. Sometimes things get a little sharp here...

[leveymg]

20. Do less harm. Prevent the escalation of the conflict by pressuring our "friends" in the region to

withdraw their Jihadist fighters, weapons, and flow of funds to combatants.

If we're going to do an arms embargo, do it equitably, cut off the flow of money and weapons through neighboring countries where we have influence. Make that deescalation a quid pro quo conditional upon a corresponding stand-down of government forces and entry of (real) humanitarian aid.

If you want to stop the killing and prevent genocide, you apply pressure where you can most effectively exercise it, and negotiate in good faith. Unless, all you want is regime change - in which case, you just stand back and watch the Sunnis kill the Shi'ia, and vis-a-versa, which is the path now taken by Madam Secretary and the President.

[BadtotheboneBob]

27. Were it so easy...

The Sunni/Shi'a schism and internecine conflict is over a millenium old. As told to me by a Saudi Shi'ite (there's a minority) surgical resident here in the US (at a VA hospital, of all places, in Detroit) it is something that American's can not fathom. As you probably know, they kill each other with great abandon in Iraq and Pakistan, blowing up Mosques, killing pilgrims. The Sunni barely tolerate the Shi'a in the Gulf countries and have harshly put down Shi'a protesters there. They both kill the Sufi, particularly in Pakistan... and on and on, ad nauseum. Listening to that doctor, it seemed the only resolution will be if one side totally eliminates the other.

[leveymg]

29. We shouldn't be helping one side eliminate the other, then. eom

[saras]

9. It's not an accusation, it's a bald statement of fact.

Of course, this fact doesn't change the additional fact that they want the same thing, and have been aggressively working towards it for at least a decade.

But history shows pretty clearly that all through the twentieth century, American "humanitarianism" gets taken over by other interests as soon as it gets successful enough to have influence. The other interests are usually some compromise between consumer capitalism and the global American military, although occasionally the CIA steps in because it needs a front organization in the area.

And I think any culture on the planet (as well as any other species) has the absolute right to engage in all-out, no-holds-barred, no-Geneva-Convention war against consumer capitalism.

[OnyxCollie]

14. Well, *yeah*.

[Odin2005]

15. LOL, typical accusing others of what you yourself are doing.

[Bossy Monkey]

16. Ah, "hegemony"! I've so missed you! It's the '70s again!

(Note to news readers: stress on 2d syllable.)

[xxqqqzme]

18. Hey China - one word

Tibet!

[MACARD]

21. four more

Xinjiang Province, Tiananmen square.

[Posteritatis]

23. And another four

Damn near everything else.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. This is only for public consumption, not an accurate view of

what Clinton and their top diplomat have discussed.

[leveymg]

24. What do you know that we don't, and they aren't telling?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. Only that relations between super powers always have two faces

a public one, and a private one. At the worst of the cold war, both sides still managed to send messages privately to preclude a world war by mistake or technical error.

Given the close economic ties and huge importance of the China-US economic system, does anyone really think that smarter, calmer heads aren't insuring that things don't go south real fast?

When Russia shot down that Korean flight, there were tons of contacts calming things down. When China took a modern spyplane of ours, promises were made (and kept).

Syria is a potential powder keg. As savvy as Obama is, and as savvy as the Chinese leaders are, does anyone think it is possible that the only conversations would be in public? I don't find that possible. Such behavior would only exist if Santorum or Bachmann were president. With Palin, she'd remove the Red Phone because it would clash with the curtains.

[leveymg]

26. +1 - "Palin (would) remove the Red Phone because it would clash with the curtains."

[jbpdx]

30. 2 words...

Fuck China.

[lib2DaBone]

31. Actually... facts would indicate a "FUCK YOU".....

Not everyone in America is ready for gas lines, empty food shelves, or power outages. All this and more will happen if an atack on Iran happens.

Are YOU ready to sacrifice? I doubt it....

[David__77]

32. Absolutely true. The US thinks it has the right to rule the whole world.

It's shameful. And bipartisan, sadly...