Timeline for What is the political justification by China and India for not participating in the sanctions against Russia?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14 at 19:23 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Sep 29, 2023 at 11:32 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| May 12, 2023 at 18:24 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 8, 2023 at 4:30 | comment | added | Allure | You might be interested: history.stackexchange.com/questions/68391/… | |
| May 4, 2023 at 18:18 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @einpoklum: alas it doesn't really work like that. Also, I tried to entice people here to research the existence of China-OPEC criticism, but without much luck insofar. OTOH it's more sure that the US-China relationship has turned to a level of rhetoric resembling the cold war one. | |
| May 4, 2023 at 11:45 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| May 4, 2023 at 11:44 | comment | added | einpoklum | "This only works if the party that's being threatened feels they are weaker than the party that's doing the threatening." <- It works if the threatened party feels it would be worse for them to proceed with their course of actions than it would be to change course. Which is not the same as what you wrote. At any rate, that was just a fantastic what-if, so never mind. | |
| May 4, 2023 at 9:54 | comment | added | Allure | (By the way - one could argue that China might have better helped by doing the opposite: Threatening to sanction NATO countries. I'm pretty sure there would have been multi-lateral talks for settling the Ukraine question pretty quickly if that were to happen... albeit at great economic cost to the whole world.) This only works if the party that's being threatened feels they are weaker than the party that's doing the threatening. I doubt that is the case, so if China did this, we'd likely have a full-blown new cold war of mutual sanctions. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 21:38 | comment | added | einpoklum | "because it is supposedly against them" <- It is customary in Israel to presume that the proper way to treat the state is fawning admiration + lots of arms and money. I mean, that's what the US does :-P Anyway, I don't see "the west" as that monolithic. I mean, the US (probably) thought it needed to blow up NordStream just in case "the west" wanted something a little different. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 21:25 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @einpoklum Not telling you what to think of the UN, but you must surely be aware that Israel in general seems to hold a quite negative views of the UN, because it is supposedly "against them". Anyway, citing the UN in this context was one example. My larger point is that a state can't be forced to deliver goods and services to another state. If the West doesn't want to trade with RU, it... doesn't want to trade with RU. If you want to consider West refusing to trade with RU is only to preserve a monopoly&hegemony, you are also free to do so. Just like China can have its viewpoints. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 20:10 | comment | added | einpoklum | @Fizz: "Does China critique them for that?" 1. Maybe; have you checked? 2. Such an embargo is not about maintaining "hegemony, technology ... and ideology", and I'm not sure what the Chinese ambassador meant about the "gold monopoly". | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 19:20 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Arab countries have also tried their hand at this via OPEC embargo and similar measures [also for "monopoly and ideology"]. Does China critique them for that? It's fine to reproduce the Chinese POV because that's what the Q is about, but in this answer you personally and uncritically endorse it lock, stock and barrel. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 19:06 | comment | added | einpoklum | As for the Israeli-Palestinian situation - the UN legitimized a settler entity taking control of most of Palestine by force, legitimizing a "Jewish state" on a part of Palestine in which the settlers are about half the population and control under 20% of the land. It's as though the UN had decided to found Apartheid South Africa. The major powers play games at the UN, sometimes to people's benefit and sometimes at their expense. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 19:02 | history | edited | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 951 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2023 at 18:46 | comment | added | einpoklum | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica 1. Personally, I consider the UN an illegitimate body made up of illegitimate entities, regardless of its particular actions; but let's not go into that since it's a long discussion. 2. There's universal action and there's partisan action. I didn't say partisan action was necessarily immoral or unacceptable (although it often is). In the case of Russia, it's not even as though sanctions were proposed in the SC and failed due to a Russian veto. In fact, US diplomatic efforts to get non-NATO countries take a clear side in the Ukraine have been met with cold shoulders. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 15:36 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | partisan initiative, not a UN resolution Sorry, this is putting an unrealistically high barrier to non-military action when a veto from permanent Security Council member can be expected as is the case here. Ask yourself, if the EU considered that the Israel-Palestinian situation had sufficiently deteriorated that a South Africa style package of sanctions was proposed within the EU, would you consider that illegitimate because the US vetoed it at the UN level? | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 20:33 | history | answered | einpoklum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |