7 ms·
Over the last 70 years, this has been the pattern of US foreign policy: Destabilising countries in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America, for narrow econo
by zakum1 8y ago
Over the last 70 years, this has been the pattern of US foreign policy: Destabilising countries in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America, for narrow economic or ideological benefits. It is all too easy to justify it as “our meddling” is for the greater good and “others meddling” is evil and undemocratic. There is no distinction. Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2. China in many ways has exhibited a path to a more benign and progressive foreign policy (not without its own imperfections).
- jdc 8y agoI think we're all very impressed with China's trajectory.
- googlemike 8y agoAhh yes! China, that benign and progressive of states. Nevermind destroying all freedom of speech, oppressing minorities, actively engaging in destroying (mostly by actively diluting) non han nationalities within china. What are you talking about?
- wongarsu 8y agobenign foreign policy. Your examples are not foreign policy
- garmaine 8y agoChina’s foreign policy is not benign. It is currently using its economic muscle to force 65 sovereign nations into debt traps that reproduce the unequal treaties and extrajudicial leases of late-stage colonialism.
- snapdangle 8y agoHow many governments have they overthrown for bananas and oil, though?
- garmaine 8y agoSo?
- tareqak 8y agoCould you please clarify? Are you saying that it's alright to overthrow foreign governments for access to their resources, or that debt traps disguised as foreign aid are worse?
- garmaine 8y agoNo I’m implying that whataboutism isn’t an interesting, or useful line of inquiry to respond to.
- wongarsu 8y agoWe are in the context of an article about a CIA operation to overthrow an Iranian government, in a comment thread about China having benign foreign policy. I don't think comparing China to the US is whataboutism in this context.
- garmaine 8y agoWhataboutism is a rhetorical technique and not a context dependent determination. If I say “X is bad”, you following up with “but Y is also bad!” is not a logical argument. It carries no persuasive weight in rational discourse.
- zrav 8y agoUntil recently China ran a foreign policy of stability. But they have changed gears now, pursuing unilateral goals with increasing aggressiveness, also filling the power vacuum left by the waning US.
- A2017U1 8y agoThose same countries have the option to go to the World Bank for loans, the problem is the World Bank is used to enforce Western ideals onto different cultures in return for the loans. The Chinese loans come with no strings attached other than the infrastructure being the collateral if the country can't pay.
- garmaine 8y agoIt did come with conditions of legal reform and entering the belt and road trade zone.
- yesforwhat 8y ago> China in many ways has exhibited a path to a more benign and progressive foreign policy This guy is joking, right?
- stephen_g 8y agoForeign policy-wise, he’s probably accurate. That’s more of a comment on how destructive the US has been internationally. He’s not necessarily saying China’s is objectively good.
- zakum1 8y agowas not claiming China does not have faults. Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive. My real point is the hypocrisy of the west, that we cannot objectively see the problems with instigating coupe against governments that challenges our selfish economic interests.
- mikeash 8y agoHow many countries has China invaded for no good reason? How many wars are they fighting right now?
- gok 8y agoTibet, Vietnam, Korea, Burma? And at least two right now [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_P...
- A2017U1 8y agoWhich two? Mali is a few hundred troops assisting the government. Not sure if that qualifies as an invasion. Vietnam the most recent in 1979 and lasted for two weeks in response to the Vietnamese government attempting to annex Cambodia and Laos, both of which were Chinese allies.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago> If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror. -- Hannah Arendt It may be a stretch, but it occured to me that one could say that the US increased internal repression to protect the external repression, while China now increases external repression to protect internal repression. https://onemileatatime.com/marriott-fired-employee-for-liking-tweet/ https://onemileatatime.com/marriott-fired-employee-for-likin... > At the same time, I can see where Marriott is coming from. I can’t imagine how much money it cost them to have their website and app blocked in China for a week, and unfortunately Jones was a “sacrifice” that they made to appease China and probably avoid a similar punishment again. Not that I want to equate that with a war of aggression, but I don't find that progressive. Though I agree with > Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2 I would even generalize it beyond the US. And that's really the only constructive way out of this I see, to own up to one's own past and crimes, stop repeating them, and to not partake in the crimes of others, and supporting them in owning up to theirs. I fully admit that saying that is dumb, but doing that, that would be genius. When two or more elephants engage in a dick waving contest the grass goes blind. We are people, not nations. The "leaders" of our nations for the most part don't serve us, and don't speak for us. Let's not forget that.
- acct1771 8y agoIs this the whimper?
- zakum1 8y agoI was not claiming China does not have faults. Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive. My real point is the hypocrisy of the west, that we cannot objectively see the problems with instigating coupe against governments that challenges our selfish economic interests.
- deogeo 8y agoIt's not hypocrisy, it's misinformation. After all, the American public wasn't told they're gonna invade $middle_eastern_country for their economic interest, but for freedom. And the (US side) costs of war are borne by all taxpayers, while the benefits accrue to a handful of corporations. I'd wager that, taken together, these costs outweigh the benefits. But the (rarely named by the media) corporations don't bear much of the costs. As for CIA coups, well, they don't get much air time in the 24-hour news cycle, do they?
- hkai 8y agoI was reading your comment but got distracted by the PHP syntax.
- pavelrub 8y ago> Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2 Is this a joke? The world since WW2 is the most peaceful it has ever been in human history. The economic and military superiority of the US is one of the main reasons why this is so. > It is all too easy to justify it as “our meddling” is for the greater good and “others meddling” is evil and undemocratic. There is no distinction. There is an obvious distinction: different countries seek to promote different, and opposing, interests. The world Russia seeks to create is very different from the world the US seeks to create. Instead of thinking this is about the universal morality of “meddling”, you should ask yourself: in which world would you prefer to live in? That aside, it’s obvious that the US foreign policy has very often been very poorly designed. But claiming that we should be as upset about US meddling as about Russian or Chinese meddling is quite absurd. People in the West are upset about Russian meddling precisely because it is Russian, and promotes Russian interests that go against Western values, not because they think “meddling is wrong” in some universal sense. > Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive. Indeed. Why would anybody living in the West would want Middle Eastern countries controlled by China? That this would be met by outrage is a testament to the positive influence the US has on the world. I would much rather see the ME countries turn into western-style democracies through US meddling, than into Chinese puppets through Chinese meddling. That the former can’t be achieved, and any attempt of achieving it will likely be counterproductive, is a separate matter. But it seems to me like you are misconstructing the issue: you seem to think that when people oppose "Chinese meddling", they do it because they believe foreign meddling is universally immoral, and they are therefore hypocritical when they don't similarly condemn US meddling. But that’s simply not the case: People want meddling that promotes the kind of world they want to see, and don’t want meddling that goes against it. There is nothing hypocritical about this.
- capex 8y ago> Is this a joke? The world since WW2 is the most peaceful it has ever been in human history. Not a joke, if you care to look outside the West.
- cassianoleal 8y ago
- beginningguava 8y agoYet many people are currently begging the US to intervene in with Yeman, Ukraine, and the Myanmar rohingya muslim situation. Criticism in hindsight is easy, how much worse would things have been if the US hadn't fought communism? Stalin killed 20+ million, Mao 50+ million, Pol Pot 2+ million. Without US intervention Large chunks of South America and Africa would have been competing for the communism kill high score. Personally I don't want the US intervening because we get criticized no matter what we do and we'd save trillions
- A2017U1 8y agoThe middle Eastern wars since 9/11 have killed more civilians than Pol Pot.
- lostmsu 8y agoStalin killed 20+ million, but US intervened in 90s? Did they think he was secretly still alive?
- beginningguava 8y agoKorean war, Vietnam, and other activities in South America and Africa were all to prevent the spread of communism and soviet influence in general.