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.
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.