4 ms·

This definitely doesn't address that the Chinese government is centrally only interested in furthering their own interests, often without care or regard to its

This definitely doesn't address that the Chinese government is centrally only interested in furthering their own interests, often without care or regard to its expense, and nothing can hold them accountable. With the US and US hegemony, you can actually hold someone accountable. Bad actors can be protested, outed, and dealt with peacefully. What I am not saying is the US acts with best interests of others in mind all the time - this isn't true either, and I'm not taking an extreme here on this, US has plenty of issues on the world stage (and as an American, at home too) - but centrally, we can be held accountable (and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side). You have zero recourse with China, if they decide to muscle into something, or support a horribly oppressive dictatorship to extract your national resources, there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention. Yes, I'm perfectly aware we propped up dictatorships and overthrew governments, but I'm also aware of the fact that there were massive protests in the streets upon revelations of many doings that ultimately lead to them being undone or the US backing off, you have something of recourse there, you can deal with the US government in some discernible way you just can't with the CCP & Chinese government actors. This has to be accounted for in the conversation when talking about international relations, especially when talking about "new hegemony" as it were. I also question the assertion that the "world" has some massive distaste for the US. Unless world means China. When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up? When Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand need assistance, who's right there, hands open? Which nation has taken a very public and consistent stance against Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and committed billions of dollars in assistance without blinking? I'll give you a hint: its not China

Aperocky 4y ago
> Yes, I'm perfectly aware we propped up dictatorships and overthrew governments, but I'm also aware of the fact that there were massive protests in the streets. While I generally agree with you, but there's a false choice presented here. I don't think the massive protests did anything in regards to foreign policy. And for most Latin American countries that the US has traditionally been doing whatever it wants to - there's not even an avenue for them to recourse. "and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side" is an impossible ask that basically equates to no recourse in most situations. So for those countries that do not fall inside the protection and alliance of the United States, China presents a true recourse, it's also true for the reverse.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  There's been alot of changes to US foreign policy because of public pressure. I think the Cuba embargo being softened under President Obama (as well as his official state visit) was a huge step in the right direction and can be traced to public pressure on normalizing relations with Cuba. The trade agreements across Latin America lifted millions out of poverty (though results have been lopsided at home) Billions in foreign aid[0][1] to Latin America since the 90s Billions in Foreign Aid to Africa since the 90s Numerous laws passed that criminalize foreign corruption practices (you can indeed hold corporations responsible for corruption, though not a perfect process) Trade Treaties (which we have a history of honoring) [0]: I am speaking of non military aid specifically, I'm excluding military aid in these numbers [1]: Crucially, in most instances, this aid isn't given to governments directly that have proven human rights abuses, but instead directed to NGOs and non profits (see https://harvardpolitics.com/debunking-myths-foreign-aid/ https://harvardpolitics.com/debunking-myths-foreign-aid/)
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    > There's been alot of changes to US foreign policy because of public pressure. I think the Cuba embargo being softened under President Obama (as well as his official state visit) was a huge step in the right direction and can be traced to public pressure on normalizing relations with Cuba. How'd that work out since he left office?
    - no_wizard 4y ago
      Expansion: https://www.state.gov/biden-administration-expands-support-to-the-cuban-people/ https://www.state.gov/biden-administration-expands-support-t... More normalized relations, even under Trump
      - bigbillheck 4y ago
        Seems remarkably fragile: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations#chapter-title-0-6 https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations#chapter-t...
wangii 4y ago
how did the world hold US accountable in the last 40 years, indulge me, please?
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> US has plenty of issues on the world stage (and as an American, at home too) - but centrally, we can be held accountable (and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side). Were George W. Bush and Tony Blair held accountable for lying about WMD and launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq? Was anyone in the Bush administration held accountable for ordering torture of detainees, and was anyone at the CIA held responsible not only for engaging in torture, but then destroying evidence? There are more than just "issues" with the US on the world stage, and virtually no one is ever held accountable for them. > You have zero recourse with China ... there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention. This isn't true. Public pressure actually plays a large role in how the Chinese government acts. You do not have the same recourse to the legal system, but the government cannot simply ignore what people by and large think. It is incredibly sensitive about maintaining popular support.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  Yes, they were. Not immediately, but in many ways that may feel foreign to non US citizens, it happens at the polls, in the electorate, the way the government handles itself going forward, new policies and ideas etc. Obama was elected in no small part due to outsized opposition to policies of the previous administration. Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. The question of what to do once we realized we needed to reverse course is up for debate, but yes, things changed, people lost their positions, power, and there are reforms and accountability - the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example. They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation. There's this weird thing about how the US waged two wars too, in regards to the rules of engagement. There were 100% bad actors, and many (unfortunately not all) were held by military and civilian court for war crimes, re: blackwater contractors, the case of Pvt 1st Class Andrew Holmes etc. The US military has official rules of engagement for treating people humanely - which are in fact expected to be followed - and people were held accountable for not doing so. Not perfect mind you - but yeah, there were huge changes as these revelations came to light. International relations can be bizarre, and again, I'm no apologist, we shouldn't have even invaded in the first place, but do you think the Russian soliders in the Ukraine will be held internally accountable for war crimes? Do you think the Chinese would? Do you think they are held accountable in any way for other types of crimes, like foreign bribery, corruption, supporting human rights abuses? Can you even freely appeal to the Chinese population?
RobotToaster 4y ago
>When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up? The last time Europe actually needed military assistance was WWII, and China arguably played a larger role in that than the USA.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  Really? How many bullets did China produce for the European theater? Artillery shells? Warships and planes? How much food and oil did they ship? More Chinese people died. By any other measure the United States won the war via the Lend/Lease program.
  - no_wizard 4y ago
    Mao's entire army was outfitted with American weapons & vehicles in WWII which they then used to run Chiang Kai-shek out of the country to what is now Taiwan. We were initially going to arm Chiang Kai-shek but he was refusing to use the arms against the Japanese, believing he would need them for the civil war that would follow. Interesting snippet of history.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    America then sent us the bill, the UK didn't finish paying it until this century.
    - 123pie123 4y ago
      and ?
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    How about this for a counterfactual: if not for China, the Japanese would have seized India, and from there raise hell in Iran (oil supplies!) and put serious pressure on the Suez Canal.
- 4y ago
27fingies 4y ago
[flagged]
- no_wizard 4y ago
  > Europe is a vassal. If the US didn't show up that would be a problem for the US. The definition of a vassal and how European countries act and engage do not match. This is both factually false and even subjectively false. European countries are not vassal states of the US. No country is, in fact. >It's a good thing we held one random trader from Credit Suisse accountable for 2008. This makes no sense. The US is not singularly responsible for the mortgage crisis that swept the world. No one country is. Not even sure how to address the rest, since there is no real attempt to engage the issues at hand, nor provide counter points to how it would be better with China helming global issues
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Which nation has taken a very public and consistent stance against Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and committed billions of dollars in assistance without blinking? I'll give you a hint: its not China You say this as if the Ukraine invasion is the ethical bar, meanwhile the US has been invading countries for 50 years.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  Russia and China too, in fact. And Ukraine is still an ethical bar, a big one, as to when push comes to shove, China isn't a great partner. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to look fondly on how China has acted here. Remind me again why China supports Russian aggression in the Ukraine?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    > Remind me again why China supports Russian aggression in the Ukraine? China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics. The United States has extremely weak neighbors and huge oceans separating us from threats. Obviously our situation is very different.
    - augment001 4y ago
      > China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics. Can you explain what you are thinking? One implication is that China is supporting Russia because they are afraid of a Russian military actin, but is that what you mean?
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Basically it means you should be friendly to your neighbors. To use a crude analogy - if you're in a apartment complex you would probably be nicer to your neighbor than if they lived in another building, and not literally next to you, right? Russia, China and India are the three neighbors living in a triplex. Meanwhile the United States is in a mansion surrounded by a moat a mile away.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> You have zero recourse with China, if they decide to muscle into something, or support a horribly oppressive dictatorship to extract your national resources, there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention. I keep hearing rumors of chinese buying brazilian farm lands, even assassinating land owners. Not exactly sure how much truth there is to this but I don't doubt it.

Aperocky 4y ago

> Yes, I'm perfectly aware we propped up dictatorships and overthrew governments, but I'm also aware of the fact that there were massive protests in the streets. While I generally agree with you, but there's a false choice presented here. I don't think the massive protests did anything in regards to foreign policy. And for most Latin American countries that the US has traditionally been doing whatever it wants to - there's not even an avenue for them to recourse. "and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side" is an impossible ask that basically equates to no recourse in most situations. So for those countries that do not fall inside the protection and alliance of the United States, China presents a true recourse, it's also true for the reverse.

no_wizard 4y ago
There's been alot of changes to US foreign policy because of public pressure. I think the Cuba embargo being softened under President Obama (as well as his official state visit) was a huge step in the right direction and can be traced to public pressure on normalizing relations with Cuba. The trade agreements across Latin America lifted millions out of poverty (though results have been lopsided at home) Billions in foreign aid[0][1] to Latin America since the 90s Billions in Foreign Aid to Africa since the 90s Numerous laws passed that criminalize foreign corruption practices (you can indeed hold corporations responsible for corruption, though not a perfect process) Trade Treaties (which we have a history of honoring) [0]: I am speaking of non military aid specifically, I'm excluding military aid in these numbers [1]: Crucially, in most instances, this aid isn't given to governments directly that have proven human rights abuses, but instead directed to NGOs and non profits (see https://harvardpolitics.com/debunking-myths-foreign-aid/ https://harvardpolitics.com/debunking-myths-foreign-aid/)
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  > There's been alot of changes to US foreign policy because of public pressure. I think the Cuba embargo being softened under President Obama (as well as his official state visit) was a huge step in the right direction and can be traced to public pressure on normalizing relations with Cuba. How'd that work out since he left office?
  - no_wizard 4y ago
    Expansion: https://www.state.gov/biden-administration-expands-support-to-the-cuban-people/ https://www.state.gov/biden-administration-expands-support-t... More normalized relations, even under Trump
    - bigbillheck 4y ago
      Seems remarkably fragile: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations#chapter-title-0-6 https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations#chapter-t...

wangii 4y ago

how did the world hold US accountable in the last 40 years, indulge me, please?

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> US has plenty of issues on the world stage (and as an American, at home too) - but centrally, we can be held accountable (and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side). Were George W. Bush and Tony Blair held accountable for lying about WMD and launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq? Was anyone in the Bush administration held accountable for ordering torture of detainees, and was anyone at the CIA held responsible not only for engaging in torture, but then destroying evidence? There are more than just "issues" with the US on the world stage, and virtually no one is ever held accountable for them. > You have zero recourse with China ... there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention. This isn't true. Public pressure actually plays a large role in how the Chinese government acts. You do not have the same recourse to the legal system, but the government cannot simply ignore what people by and large think. It is incredibly sensitive about maintaining popular support.

no_wizard 4y ago
Yes, they were. Not immediately, but in many ways that may feel foreign to non US citizens, it happens at the polls, in the electorate, the way the government handles itself going forward, new policies and ideas etc. Obama was elected in no small part due to outsized opposition to policies of the previous administration. Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. The question of what to do once we realized we needed to reverse course is up for debate, but yes, things changed, people lost their positions, power, and there are reforms and accountability - the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example. They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation. There's this weird thing about how the US waged two wars too, in regards to the rules of engagement. There were 100% bad actors, and many (unfortunately not all) were held by military and civilian court for war crimes, re: blackwater contractors, the case of Pvt 1st Class Andrew Holmes etc. The US military has official rules of engagement for treating people humanely - which are in fact expected to be followed - and people were held accountable for not doing so. Not perfect mind you - but yeah, there were huge changes as these revelations came to light. International relations can be bizarre, and again, I'm no apologist, we shouldn't have even invaded in the first place, but do you think the Russian soliders in the Ukraine will be held internally accountable for war crimes? Do you think the Chinese would? Do you think they are held accountable in any way for other types of crimes, like foreign bribery, corruption, supporting human rights abuses? Can you even freely appeal to the Chinese population?

RobotToaster 4y ago

>When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up? The last time Europe actually needed military assistance was WWII, and China arguably played a larger role in that than the USA.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arrosenberg 4y ago
Really? How many bullets did China produce for the European theater? Artillery shells? Warships and planes? How much food and oil did they ship? More Chinese people died. By any other measure the United States won the war via the Lend/Lease program.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  Mao's entire army was outfitted with American weapons & vehicles in WWII which they then used to run Chiang Kai-shek out of the country to what is now Taiwan. We were initially going to arm Chiang Kai-shek but he was refusing to use the arms against the Japanese, believing he would need them for the civil war that would follow. Interesting snippet of history.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  America then sent us the bill, the UK didn't finish paying it until this century.
  - 123pie123 4y ago
    and ?
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  How about this for a counterfactual: if not for China, the Japanese would have seized India, and from there raise hell in Iran (oil supplies!) and put serious pressure on the Suez Canal.
4y ago

27fingies 4y ago

[flagged]

no_wizard 4y ago
> Europe is a vassal. If the US didn't show up that would be a problem for the US. The definition of a vassal and how European countries act and engage do not match. This is both factually false and even subjectively false. European countries are not vassal states of the US. No country is, in fact. >It's a good thing we held one random trader from Credit Suisse accountable for 2008. This makes no sense. The US is not singularly responsible for the mortgage crisis that swept the world. No one country is. Not even sure how to address the rest, since there is no real attempt to engage the issues at hand, nor provide counter points to how it would be better with China helming global issues

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Which nation has taken a very public and consistent stance against Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and committed billions of dollars in assistance without blinking? I'll give you a hint: its not China You say this as if the Ukraine invasion is the ethical bar, meanwhile the US has been invading countries for 50 years.

no_wizard 4y ago
Russia and China too, in fact. And Ukraine is still an ethical bar, a big one, as to when push comes to shove, China isn't a great partner. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to look fondly on how China has acted here. Remind me again why China supports Russian aggression in the Ukraine?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  > Remind me again why China supports Russian aggression in the Ukraine? China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics. The United States has extremely weak neighbors and huge oceans separating us from threats. Obviously our situation is very different.
  - augment001 4y ago
    > China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics. Can you explain what you are thinking? One implication is that China is supporting Russia because they are afraid of a Russian military actin, but is that what you mean?
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Basically it means you should be friendly to your neighbors. To use a crude analogy - if you're in a apartment complex you would probably be nicer to your neighbor than if they lived in another building, and not literally next to you, right? Russia, China and India are the three neighbors living in a triplex. Meanwhile the United States is in a mansion surrounded by a moat a mile away.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> You have zero recourse with China, if they decide to muscle into something, or support a horribly oppressive dictatorship to extract your national resources, there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention. I keep hearing rumors of chinese buying brazilian farm lands, even assassinating land owners. Not exactly sure how much truth there is to this but I don't doubt it.