"We support every effort to combat international terrorism through the formulation of international conventions and hope that the international community will take further steps to improve the anti-terrorism international legal framework"
About this Quote
Diplomacy loves a sentence that sounds like action while carefully avoiding it, and Li Peng delivers a masterclass. “We support every effort” is maximal commitment in minimal form: it signals alignment with a global consensus against terrorism without pledging anything measurable. The verb is “support,” not “join,” “lead,” or “implement.” Support can mean a vote, a statement, or simply not objecting too loudly.
The real work happens in the bureaucratic architecture of the phrase. “Combat international terrorism through the formulation of international conventions” funnels a hot, morally charged subject into the cool machinery of treaties and legal text. That move is strategic. It frames terrorism primarily as a matter of international law, not politics, grievance, or state behavior, and it locates solutions in multilateral process rather than in scrutiny of particular governments. Legalism becomes both shield and stage: a shield against accusations (“we’re for rules”), a stage on which states can appear responsible without surrendering discretion.
The “hope” clause is the tell. Hoping the “international community” will “take further steps” pushes agency outward. It implies momentum while distributing responsibility so widely that no single actor can be held accountable if nothing changes. The subtext: China wants the legitimacy of a global anti-terror stance, but on terms that preserve sovereignty and control over definitions. In many regimes, “terrorism” is a flexible label; strengthening an “international legal framework” can be read as an attempt to standardize that label in ways compatible with domestic security priorities.
Contextually, this is late-20th-century statecraft: condemn the threat, embrace multilateralism, keep your hands free.
The real work happens in the bureaucratic architecture of the phrase. “Combat international terrorism through the formulation of international conventions” funnels a hot, morally charged subject into the cool machinery of treaties and legal text. That move is strategic. It frames terrorism primarily as a matter of international law, not politics, grievance, or state behavior, and it locates solutions in multilateral process rather than in scrutiny of particular governments. Legalism becomes both shield and stage: a shield against accusations (“we’re for rules”), a stage on which states can appear responsible without surrendering discretion.
The “hope” clause is the tell. Hoping the “international community” will “take further steps” pushes agency outward. It implies momentum while distributing responsibility so widely that no single actor can be held accountable if nothing changes. The subtext: China wants the legitimacy of a global anti-terror stance, but on terms that preserve sovereignty and control over definitions. In many regimes, “terrorism” is a flexible label; strengthening an “international legal framework” can be read as an attempt to standardize that label in ways compatible with domestic security priorities.
Contextually, this is late-20th-century statecraft: condemn the threat, embrace multilateralism, keep your hands free.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Li
Add to List
