....
Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands
https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow.
The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now?
...
As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit.
Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people.
If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is
accused of being in China's pocket.Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine.
Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions?
I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned?
S.I. GDP is just
$1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics.
RE GDP, you are right to assume that people would be very happy about a better lifestyle - that is, if that money really ever reaches the average Joe. However, you should as well tell them that they are becoming a military target, should a war ever occur and they will be from then on depending on keeping in the good side of the CCP and thus loose their independence and, to a great degree, their freedom. You, see ... there are no free lunches, particularly, there are no free "swallow nests" when dealing with the CCP (and I am the one being classed as Naïve... oh my).
See, you can argue about how representative democracies are, however, you cannot argue how representative is the system in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran... because there is no argument.
Your position is that "since representative governments are not perfect then everything is equally bad". Cuba and US have the same level of legitimacy for you. Also, you take the practical approach to world diplomacy, but an ethical approach to judging representation in democracies.
We do not agree, that's all. Certainly, I am not trying to make anything up, I am simply expressing my view. I do not need to "list", nor try to convince you of anything either, nor do I need to justify anyone else's doing and I am certainly not going to try to justify any of the Bushes - Junior is certainly psychopath IMHO.
I think that my way of seeing things is what corresponds to a civilized position in the XXI century. Tzars, despots, kings, feudal lords... that is medieval and humanity should strive to get rid of those systems and those who support and promote them.
I am not a fan of the US nor I defend their way of electing representatives, the massive private donations, the gerrymandering and many other of the idiosyncrasies of the voting system. I could say the same for France, UK (extreme gerrymandering), Spain (you vote for a list, not a person) and even Switzerland which tends to delegate too much into referendums, even for decisions that are too complex, ... you can name any representative system and it has its faults.