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.
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/)
How'd that work out since he left office?
More normalized relations, even under Trump
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.
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?
No one went to prison. Bush served out two terms (the first one unelected, but that's an entirely different question). The US occupied Iraq for 9 years. If this is the "accountability" you're touting, it's frankly pathetic.
> Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work.
That's a major understatement, in the case of the US. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, in an illegal war of aggression, justified to the public on the basis of outright lies, with the complicity of much of the established media.
> the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example
The CIA, on orders from the Bush administration, carried out a global torture program, in which it kidnapped people off the street, including in Europe, and smuggled them off to black sites for torture. The Obama administration decided not to prosecute anyone. In Obama's words, "We tortured some folks," but we have to leave the past behind us. When there was eventually a Senate investigation, the CIA spied on the Senators involved. When that came to light, the CIA apologized, but no one in a position of responsibility faced any serious consequences. The same goes for when the CIA destroyed evidence of torture - no consequences.
> They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation
That's very reassuring. I'm sure the CIA has mended its ways and is now staffed and led by boyscouts. They wouldn't do anything like, say, plan to assassinate or kidnap Julian Assange out of an embassy in London.
What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so)
And this just by passes the lack of understanding you may have for our democratic process and reforms in practice, judging from how you may think noone was held accountable for what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan (this just isn't true, heads rolled. No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison)
I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs.
I'd also love to know if you can go to the middle of Beijing and shout from the rooftops that he should be tried for the genocide of the Uyghurs and see how it goes
How about thinking of the global south, especially Africa, as something more than a basket case and a billion mouths to feed and actually investing in them.
> Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies?
Yeah that's pretty crappy but so is spying on our supposed allies and pretty much the rest of the world, even our own companies.
> The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so)
In what way has that happen to the US?
> I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs.
Neither of those things have happened yet you seem to hold the US as being a better global partner. Rather than engage in this debate over who's the better leader for the world, let me present a model that avoids that: a multi-polar world where there is no one dominant power. Since neither China nor the US seems to be someone the world can fully trust, why not have a multi-polar world? With EU, US, China, India, African Union, etc. as centers of great power. Why should the world be dominated by one power? A multi-polar world is one that's much more likely to hold people or even countries accountable. A world dominated by one power means that one power will have to answer to no one but itself.
If we are shifting gears - I'd like no polars, rather a more neutral, flat world, with open ideas and borders, where human rights are respected and laws are fair and courts provide actual redress to citizens and non citizens alike.
I also realize this is...fantasy, but thats my preferred world, if thats the question.
Now I'd like to see a more good faith attempt at the conversation at hand. US has many critical flaws, and I readily acknowledge them, I also point out why the US political structure still makes it realistically amendable to being a net good force in the world (and I don't - at all - suggest it should be the only one).
Where is the equal and equivalent conversation coming from on the other side here? I'm not seeing it.
Lets try to have a good faith discussion about this, and one that doesn't just focus on the US issues (which I've been open and forcoming with). China has them too, yet we're suppose to ignore that?
Since 2014, China has implemented a more independent judiciary at the local level. Zhang Taisu at Yale Law School recently wrote a paper on this: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/xis-law-and-order-strat...
Is it the same as the rule of law as we know it? No. But that sort of conversation is happening.
You and I may be simply talking past each other despite largely having the same goals/vision for this world. My point is the debate over if the US or China is better becomes irrelevant if the world isn't dominated by one or two countries. In a world that's closer to your "fantasy", we don't need to hope for countries to be better actor because the other countries are collectively strong enough to compel better behavior. In a world like that, a system based on rules can truly emerge instead of the de facto might makes right.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to discuss reality. Maybe heads rolled in an alternate universe, but not in the one I live in.
> the genocide of the Uyghurs.
There is no "genocide of the Uyghurs." This would be the first "genocide" in history in which nobody died. Using that word in this case is offensive. Genocide is an important word, and shouldn't be thrown around for cheap rhetorical points.
I don't have a rosy view of the Chinese government either, but I object to this whitewashing of the US government, which has behaved especially egregiously on the world stage over the last 20+ years.
As per genocide, well, multiple countries call it genocide, including France[0], Belgium[1], the UK[2], Canada[3] and many others.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-passe...
[1]: https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/belgian-parliament-...
The rest of your quote doesn't substantially change the meaning. This is what I left out: "No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison." Nobody of any importance went to prison. The highest levels of the Bush administration ordered torture, and publicly justified it. None of them went to prison. The CIA officers who tortured people? No prosecutions. The only people I'm aware of who went to prison were a few sadistic privates in the Abu Ghraib prison who took pictures that got leaked.
> it may look different to people not used to our democratic process and how our government works
People who don't think Bush et al. were held accountable for the Iraq War and for ordering a global kidnapping/torture program just don't understand the democratic process? Intriguing.
> As per genocide, well, multiple countries call it genocide, including France[0], Belgium[1], the UK[2], Canada[3] and many others.
Again, this is a "genocide" with a death toll of zero, even according to the people who are calling it a "genocide." This must be the first genocide in history in which no one died. I've rarely seen a propaganda campaign as transparent as this - even the disinformation campaign about Iraqi WMD had more plausibility.
The current CIA director got promoted BECAUSE of their role in the torture program, not in spite of it.
Yes, they (and their political parties) lost power in elections a few years later. Try that in China.
He was reelected because of his role in foreign interventions not in spite of them.
Xi looks like he'll be dictator for life. And the people didn't elect him.
The last time Europe actually needed military assistance was WWII, and China arguably played a larger role in that than the USA.
More Chinese people died. By any other measure the United States won the war via the Lend/Lease program.
Interesting snippet of history.
Even in the Pacific theatre, the US Navy was absolutely critical to collapsing Japan's empire.
Sounds familiar...
> With the US and US hegemony, you can actually hold someone accountable. Bad actors can be protested, outed, and dealt with peacefully.
It's a good thing we held one random trader from Credit Suisse accountable for 2008.
> When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up?
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
You say this as if the Ukraine invasion is the ethical bar, meanwhile the US has been invading countries for 50 years.
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?
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.
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?
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.
If one of your neighbors was beating up and stealing from another of your neighbors, are your really saying you’d cosy up to them?
I am critical of the Chinese system of government, but I’d never think of them as cowards.
Also, I guess you can’t explain why Finland isn’t Russia’s best friend despite bordering Russia.
If you can explain why your argument doesn’t apply to Finland, I’ll point you to a news report showing China’s support for Russia.
"Finlandization is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system. [...] The Finnish political cartoonist Kari Suomalainen once explained Finlandization as "the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West"." [0]
The Soviet Union's collapse allowed Finland to spread its wings a bit more broadly, but it's worth pointing out that yes, Finland was cozying up to the Soviet Union like mad, in order to best survive their physical proximity. The logic does seem to check out, at least while the bogeyman of the USSR still shambled around.
China can defend itself just fine, is the general assertion they make, so what are they worried about exactly? If Finland can speak out against Russia, why can't China?
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/science-technology-business-mexic...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_s...
They also don't support poking a fucking insane leader of a nation with nukes that shares a massive land border with them and which they are heavily reliant on for natural resources.
Those positions aren't at odds with each other. Wanting peace but also not wanting to sour relationship with perhaps your most important neighbour aren't unreasonable things to want at the same time.
China was a great partner to Ukraine and invested a shit ton of money there, they are probably very upset that Russia has decided to go in there and fuck up the infrastructure they built.
I just don't understand what people expect from China here?
Turn around and say, "Hey Russia, I know you provide like 1/3rd of our energy and commodities imports but I would like you to go fuck yourself until you abandon your invasion of a small country that we like but isn't critical to our economy. kthxbye".
Yeah. That is entirely unrealistic and everyone should know that.
The US provides weapons to Ukraine because it's convenient. They send them surplus old crap and it hurts the Russians. Good for Ukraine, good for the US and costs them essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things, in fact it's probably the cheapest $/russian_damage they can currently purchase. They get to fight a war (their favourite pasttime) with none of the negative domestic consequences. Win win!
On the other hand there is nothing China can do here on either side that isn't negative expected value for them.
Them backing Russia would fuck them over with Europe which is actually a really good trading partner. Most people agree it's all negatives here so I don't think I need to elaborate.
Them going against Russia would just obliterate the relationship they have spent decades fixing and probably buy them absolutely nothing with anyone else.
The US isn't going to turn around and be like "Hey! China doesn't like Russia anymore, now they are our best friend!". That shit ain't happening. The US will continue to contain and suppress China because that is their prerogative and has nothing to do with their alliance with Russia. US can't allow a world were there is a power that rivals theirs, it violates every current US doctrine of "world order".
TLDR: China doesn't have anything to gain by directly rebuffing Russia and plenty to gain by staying relatively neutral in the matter.
Would you mind explaining where they have made it clear?
All I’ve seen are statements blaming it on the US for being open to new NATO members.
Why is this better?
Prolonging the war harms Russia (so long as Russia doesn't win). It increases tensions between NATO and OPEC. It's a drag on economic productivity for most of the countries engaging. If resulting shortages hurt the developing world, that's another anti-NATO talking point for China in its relations with those states, and weakened economies or state-stability might open up new opportunities for China. Meanwhile, China gets cheap fuel and can generally do as they like with Russian relations, since, what're the Russians gonna do, push them away?
Meanwhile, what would they gain from flipping hard against Russia?
China's whole deal, to paint with a broad brush, is avoiding entanglements and prodding things the way that suits them... from the sidelines. Their foreign policy doesn't really follow some kind of moral narrative like we like to (try to) apply to ours in the West, to the point that the narrative they do have is about how they won't screw with foreign countries for reasons of morals or ideology—though neither their narrative nor ours fully fits the facts of their or our behavior. We play our cards, they play theirs. Our favored move right now is to help Russia wreck its military and economy while embarrassing itself. China's favored move is swooping into the resulting trade vacuum to their own benefit, and keeping this mess going as long as possible, because it's hurting everyone involved while helping them and improving their overall diplomatic/strategic position.
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.
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