3 ms·

Not sure if this is the case with the postal union, but many multilateral organizations are structured one-vote-per-country and the Chinese side is able, by din

Not sure if this is the case with the postal union, but many multilateral organizations are structured one-vote-per-country and the Chinese side is able, by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments, to get a disproportionate amount of influence. (The obvious caveats apply: no idea if this applies in this particular instance; this doesn't mean that withdrawing from international agreements is always the appropriate step for the US to take; other voting systems have their own problems)

markdown 7y ago
> by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right?
- krapht 7y ago
  > Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right? Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? You're missing the point, and I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? Yup, two years in India over a decade ago when it was much worse than it is now. At the end of the day, a country will ally with or back the country from which they can extract the maximum benefit. Game theory applies. Many Pacific Island countries (many of the tiny countries you allude to) have benefited greatly from switching allegiance to China. In contrast, the US has much bigger fish to fry (billions in aid to Israel supposedly for mid-east stability) and paid these tiny nations no attention whatsoever over the past few decades. > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals. Do you mean like the US, where unlike anywhere else in the world, bribery (cunningly called lobbying) is both completely legal and publicly accepted?

markdown 7y ago

> by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right?

krapht 7y ago
> Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right? Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? You're missing the point, and I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals.
- markdown 7y ago
  > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? Yup, two years in India over a decade ago when it was much worse than it is now. At the end of the day, a country will ally with or back the country from which they can extract the maximum benefit. Game theory applies. Many Pacific Island countries (many of the tiny countries you allude to) have benefited greatly from switching allegiance to China. In contrast, the US has much bigger fish to fry (billions in aid to Israel supposedly for mid-east stability) and paid these tiny nations no attention whatsoever over the past few decades. > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals. Do you mean like the US, where unlike anywhere else in the world, bribery (cunningly called lobbying) is both completely legal and publicly accepted?