Situation intensifies as Beijing condemns tanker seizures and US security chief calls to remove Nicolas Maduro from power.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20251223000937/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3337400/china-says-us-broke-international-law-seizing-venezuelan-oil-tankers
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
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?
It’s funny that you think your opinion about their motives even matters here. It doesn’t. They can say whatever they want in defense of their crimes…just like China can. China is literally using the exact same defense of their actions in the SCS. What makes their excuses valid, while the US’s excuses are not?
Let’s look at your analogy, from a rational perspective…I assume the “neo Nazis” you’re talking about, represent the US? So, you’re suggesting that the US has been roving around in the South China Sea, randomly robbing and killing people recently, and that China is only trying to protect itself? When did these attacks happen? Because the US hasn’t been involved in any conflicts in that region since at least the end of the Vietnam war. That makes your entire analogy invalid. China isn’t “defending itself” against anyone. No one in that region is currently threatening China, in any way.
It’s just a bullshit excuse, no different than the one the US is trying to use in the Caribbean.
That’s why reasons like these are not valid justifications for breaking the law. You don’t just get to pick and choose what laws apply to you, based on your excuses. You either think they should apply to everyone equally…or you don’t. And if you don’t…then you can’t complain when other people ignore those laws, too.