China and Russia are NATO’s biggest threats. Have to wonder why we get so many negative news stories about them? Might be because they want us to hate and distrust them.
Because exploration, in general, gets scant coverage.
I've mentioned that I'm reading "The Avoidable War" by Kevin Rudd. Just last evening, I read a passage in that book which is relevant to Ms. Nan's comment (p. 243)
The growing evidence of strategic condominium between Beijing and Moscow is also heightening European concerns about China as a future global actor beyond Asia. In 2017, joint Russian and Chinese naval exercises in both the Mediterranean and the Baltic were justified in the Chinese official media as reflecting China's "sincerity" toward Russia - repaying Moscow's solidarity with Beijing during the latter's 2016 naval exercises in the South China Sea. The Chinese statement added that "by sending our most advanced guided missile destroyers ... we were sending a strong signal to others who might provoke us." In Europe, this has been seen as part of a disturbing pattern of across-the-board security collaboration between Beijing and Moscow, including exercises, training and increased military equipment sales between the two countries.
Danny Haiphong is a journalist at Black Agenda Report (https://blackagendareport.com/) and on YouTube at The Left Lens. Black Agenda Report is a long-term alternative news site now run by Margaret Kimberley (who I also really like). They both started The Left Lens somewhat recently and it is described on the site as follows:
"Welcome to the Left Lens! This channel features videos from a variety of programs: a monthly show with Black Agenda Report's Margaret Kimberley and Danny Haiphong and The Internationalist Transmission, Danny Haiphong's solo program featuring conversations with activists, journalists, and organizers building international solidarity against U.S. interventionism and aggression.
Expect regular content and impromptu livestreams from a revolutionary, anti-imperialist, and socialist perspective."
I think it is a different perspective from yours. Maybe you should listen in/read sometime.
It's definitely a different perspective. Just not one that should be trusted as an honest purveyor of information. "Haiphong is a strident denier of the atrocities in Xinjiang. A fact which he does not deny but justifies."
I’m just looking at it from a different angle at the moment. As with the Russia story I have to wonder why, with so much exploitation in the world, this group, despite conflicting reports, gets laser level focus.
Why should we care about other people, right?
Amazing huh? She doesn't care about the Uyghurs. She doesn't care about the Ukrainians. She doesn't seem to care about anyone but herself.
I’m just looking at it from a different angle at the moment. As with the Russia story I have to wonder why, with so much exploitation in the world, this group, despite conflicting reports, gets laser level focus.
Why should we care about other people, right?
At what point should involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other countries? For the past century, the answer seems to be when it is politically expedient.
The reason this thread was started is that in one of the Ukrainian threads nan asked when has Aaron Mate lied. I said he denied there was an Uyghur genocide. The thread then evolved into what constitutes a genocide and if there was a Uyghur genocide. Jamie decided wisely to start this thread.
“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”
Also of note: “The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.”
Article ll of the Genocide Convention (The Gonvention on the Prevention and Punishmnet of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1948) provides that Genocide includes " Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."
This is a chart tweeted by an Australian data analyst using from the China Statisical Yearbook:
eta - Here's a link to Article ll of the Genocide Convention which defines Genocide:
I've mentioned that I'm reading "The Avoidable War" by Kevin Rudd. Just last evening, I read a passage in that book which is relevant to Ms. Nan's comment (p. 243)