Please don't post unsubstantive comments, especially on divisive topics.

In many ways, yes. I think Americans tend to underestimate how incredibly damaging US foreign policy has been to massive chunks of the world. The same cannot be said of China. To grossly overgeneralize: China sucks for Chinese people. America sucks for non-Americans¹, and that's only become worse in the recent past. It's something I welcome, with some reluctance.

¹ I mean this in global terms. Not referring to immigrants.

If you think "China sucks for Chinese people", please explain why you also seem to believe they would treat others any better than their own?

They don't treat other people better. Chinese foreign policy is generally indifferent to the politics of their trade partners. China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. There are no Chinese analogs to America's unambiguously disastrous adventures in Iran (Mosaddegh), Iraq, Afghanistan, Apartheid South Africa, Chile (Allende), Vietnam etc.

America's main success, in my opinion, has been the ability to cast itself, and perhaps more importantly see itself as one of the good guys - if not the Good Guy™ - while simultaneously setting half the world on fire. China has no such pretensions.

I think you have an interesting point about America's tendency to wrap itself in the mythos of the "Good Guy" and the inherent hypocrisy between our words and actions.

But with that being said, I think you're making an unfair comparison between two countries. America has been the world hegemon for ~70 years. Have we abused that power at times? Absolutely. Would China abuse the same power given the opportunity? Most certainly. It's human nature.

It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue. If they had that power, they would probably use it like every other powerful country has over the course in human history.

> China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries.

Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.

> Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.

Until Taiwan stops claiming itself to be China, it's an internal affair (or rather a civil war) within "China".

I don't want to go into a long debate over Tibet, but I suggest reading wikipedia articles on it if you haven't done so, to get a more holistic view of the timeline.

> It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue.

Not quite. I think the idea I'm struggling to communicate is that China is an amoral force upon the world. They're not good. They're just far less bad, in my opinion, from a utilitarian perspective.

> Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.

Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated. You're right about Tibet. Most of my statements are, I'll happily admit, generalizations, but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?

I think the crux of my disagreement comes from the fact while China may act "amorally" on the internal stage now, acquiring world hegemon level power will likely change that like it has changed every nation to come into that role before them. Doubly so because they already act (imo) immorally towards those they have current power over (their own people).

Remember that America was once a relatively "amoral" isolationist country too.

>Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated.

I'm not a scholar on China-Taiwan relations but as a betting man I'd put money on the PRoC not renouncing their claim on Taiwan even if the RoC renounced theirs on the mainland.

> but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?

Yes I would. But once again, China is a relatively recent major world power (in the modern era). Plenty of time to make enemies yet.

Obviously we're trading in a lot of speculation, opinion and bias here. Thank you for engaging in such a potentially heated discussion in such good faith.

I understand where you're coming from. Interesting times we live in, regardless of outcome.

I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

> China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries

I'm not sure Taiwan agrees with you. One could also argue about Tibet.

I also remember hearing they are fairly involved in Africa, but I don't recall the exact details (so I could be off there).

That's an oversimplification. Both the ROC, and the PRC lay claim to each other. I agree with you on Tibet. There's no defending that. I'm not a fan of Chinese foreign or domestic policy. I still think it's vastly preferable (for the vast majority of people outside their own borders) to American.

I'm Kenyan. I know the extent of their involvement in my country. My statements are grounded in that experience.

You are partially right, but China does seek significant control of the world outside of China’s borders. The troubles surrounding a major port at Sri Lanka (to say nothing about the South China Sea) is indicative of what a Chinese world order might look like.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...

Absolutely. My own country's main sea port faces the same threat, because our government has been pigging out on easy Chinese credit, and I still believe that a Chinese global hegemony would be preferable (from a utilitarian standpoint) to the American one. What China is pursuing in a lot of the "Global South" is nothing short of soft colonization, and is the subject of a lot of debate/thinkpieces/Twitter outrage in these parts. It might tell you something that so many of us, after looking at what's on offer, would still rather give this a try than maintain the status quo.