|
U.S. Aggressiveness Follow Up
The 'western' media reporting of the spat between Biden and Putin is typically bad.
The Guardian @guardian – 18:15 UTC · Mar 18, 2021
'Takes one to know one': Putin-Biden spat escalates over 'killer' accusation
That was not what Putin had said:
Ivan Pentchoukov @IvanPentchoukov – 16:56 UTC · Mar 19, 2021
Can't believe how many outlets are running with the same totally false translation of what Putin said.
The idiom Putin used is much closer to "the names you call others is what you should be called."
The official Kremlin transcript agrees with Ivan's formulation:
[D]ifficult, dramatic, and bloody events abound in the history of every nation and every state. But when we evaluate other people, or even other states and nations, we are always facing a mirror, we always see ourselves in the reflection, because we project our inner selves onto the other person.
You know, I remember when we were children and played in the yard, we had arguments occasionally and we used to say: whatever you call me is what you are called yourself. This is no coincidence or just a kids’ saying or joke. It has a very deep psychological undercurrent. We always see ourselves in another person and think that he or she is just like us, and evaluate the other person’s actions based on our own outlook on life.
There is an additional passage of interest which sets out rules for future talks that I have not seen reported in 'western' media:
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain relations with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its terms. Even though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different genetic, cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to reckon with this.
We, with our national interests in mind, will promote our relations with all countries, including the United States.
Secretary of State Blinken's meeting with the Chinese foreign minister in a shabby Alaskan hotel was another diplomatic train wreck:
“The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winner takes all and that would be a far more violent and unstable world,” Blinken said.
The 'rules based order' means 'do what we say' and is of course unacceptable. Here is how the Chinese replied:
What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called “rules-based” international order.
and
I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize that the universal values advocated by the United States or that the opinion of the United States could represent international public opinion, and those countries would not recognize that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.
When Yang was chided by Blinken for making a too long opening statement in response to Blinken's accusations Yang replied:
The Chinese side felt compelled to make this speech because of the tone of the U.S. side.
Well, isn’t this the intention of United States, judging from what – or the way that you have made your opening remarks, that it wants to speak to China in a condescending way from a position of strength?
So was this carefully all planned and was it carefully orchestrated with all the preparations in place? Is that the way that you had hoped to conduct this dialogue?
Well, I think we thought too well of the United States. We thought that the U.S. side will follow the necessary diplomatic protocols. So for China it was necessary that we made our position clear.
So let me say here that, in front of the Chinese side, the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength. The U.S. side was not even qualified to say such things even 20 years or 30 years back, because this is not the way to deal with the Chinese people. If the United States wants to deal properly with the Chinese side, then let’s follow the necessary protocols and do things the right way.
And this which was apparently left out of State Departments transcript:
History will prove that if you use cutthroat competition to suppress China you will be the one to suffer in the end.
The attempted U.S. assault was a home run for the Chinese side:
Many netizens on China’s social media said Chinese officials were doing a good job in Alaska, and that the U.S. side lacked sincerity.
Some even characterized the talks as a “Hongmen Banquet”, referring to an event that took place 2,000 years ago where a rebel leader invited another to a feast with the intention of murdering him.
@ ld | Mar 19 2021 22:20 utc | 47… thanks……
although it was written in 2007, i think it is still very relevant here… this might go into the difficulty one of our posters here as with the differences between different countries.. personally i believe much of culture is created, as opposed to inborn… i guess this is the chicken verses the egg question of what comes first…. i was thinking of how russia has a culture which has the great classical composers… the usa has had many great composers, but it doesn’t have a tradition of classical music composition that reaches as far back or as nearly developed… maybe i am expressing my ignorance… on the other hand russia has never had composers of the nature of ellington, gershwin, cole porter and etc. etc. either, so maybe it evens out in all of this… what is it that creates a culture?? i don’t actually know, but i don’t really think it is about the genes.. maybe it becomes about the genes immersed in a particular culture… there is so much that is great about the usa and its history, but there is a lot of darkness connected to it as well… it has been in a leadership role since sometime before the 2nd world war, but at this point it seems like it is fading and being passed by the advances of other cultures in some regards here… and ironically the usa wants to dictate to others about a ‘rule based laws’ or whatever the silly euphemism is.. the usa will still have its blues, rhythm and blues, country and jazz music which i consider very much an important part of its culture, but the role of leadership in other areas seems to be failing… these music forms i mention are very much a part of incorporating other cultures too – african slavery being a huge influence in all these musical styles..
so, on this note i share a video that i am listening to at the moment which involves one of my favourite pianists – edward simon, who coincidentally is from venezuala but moved to the usa at an early age… he does a duo here from the guitarist romero lubambo Romero Lubambo + Edward Simon march 13 2021 i cued it up to where romero first starts playing…
@ 66 migueljose… thanks! you might enjoy this video i linked to above.. i think at some point we can merge and go beyond our limitations too.. music is capable of bringing people together across boundaries.. as a consequence my interest in music is something i embrace on this level and find myself drawn to other cultures from the musical angle…
so here is the white house press briefing for today on this thread topic – Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2021
here is the segment on china-usa meeting.. interestingly our prime minister trudeau mention the issue of the 2 michaels held in china and the phrase something to the effect “china must adhere to the ‘rule based law’ b.s. was at the top of his words in the radio when i was in the car earlier..
“QUESTION: (Inaudible) Alaska, if you’re able to talk about that. Obviously, there’s been a lot of reporting since yesterday about how sort of tense the initial encounter was. And there’s been discussions of – I think both sides have accused the other of breaking protocol in those initial exchanges. But I wonder if – does the State Department – based on the tone of that first meeting, does that give you any concern for the future of the relationship with China and the possibility of reaching some agreements or getting some achievables out of these meetings? Thank you.
MS PORTER: Thank you for your question, Simon, and just as a response to that, of course, as you know, Secretary Blinken and NSA Sullivan had their first meetings with Director Yang Jiechi and State Councilor Wang Yi, and of course, are in sessions this morning. And these were serious discussions. Again, I’ll just reiterate something that NSA Sullivan said. And of course, to your point about it, the – being contentious or not, again, we – he said we don’t see conflict, but of course, welcome stiff competition.
Again, this was a single meeting, and again, we know that sometimes these diplomatic presentations can be exaggerated or maybe even aimed at a domestic audience, but we’re not letting the theatrics from the other side stop us from doing what we were intending to do in Alaska, which is lay out our principles as well as our expectations and have these tough conversations early that we need to have with the PRC.
Let’s go to the line of Edward Keenan.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) of the Alaska meetings, the two Michaels, Kovrig and – the two Canadian Michaels who are being held as political prisoners in China, widely perceived as leverage against the United States, who are going to trial now as these meetings take place. Secretary Blinken and President Biden expressed their desire to see those two Michaels released when they met with the Canadian prime minister recently. I wonder to what extent those cases are up for discussion in Alaska right now, and if so, like, to what extent and how?
MS PORTER: Well, let me start off by saying that the United States continues to publicly call on the PRC to end the arbitrary and unacceptable detentions of the Canadians citizens Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. And again, the United States is deeply concerned by the PRC’s decision to hold a closed-court hearing with the Canadian citizens. Obviously, no one from – no diplomat from Canada or the U.S. were involved in that. And we’re also deeply alarmed by a report that the PRC will commence the trial of Canadian citizen Michael Kovrig on March 22nd and we renew our call for PRC authorities to attend this trial.
We’ll always just reiterate that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Canada in calling for their immediate release, and we also continue to condemn their lack of minimum procedural protections during their two-year arbitrary detention.”
Posted by: james | Mar 20 2021 0:56 utc | 79
|
