The US is better in terms of handling its own citizens compared to China but they are much worse in terms of international affairs. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... or the bombing of civilians in middle east with killer drones.
Let's check back in a few decades and see if this still holds true. I suspect the current disparity is due the US holding the title of unchecked global super power for the past century while China is still getting up to speed. What happens when Belt & Road initiatives start to be expropriated by radical populist governments in the 2040's?
Do you think it will take that long? Surely China will expect its investments to start paying back before 2040?
This still seems like a strange, "pre-crime" sort of standard to which to hold China. You're almost counting USA misdeeds against China: "since USA did all these horrible things, you can be sure China will do even worse, someday!"
He is right - China is now growing as a super-power and only just beginning to flex their muscle in international affairs. For a proper judgement, you will need to wait a few decades to take a decision on whether they will apply the same principles they use in domestic affairs to international affairs.
Knowing that they treat their third-world neighbours in contempt and tend to regularly infringe on territorial sovereignty, I suspect that answer will be yes. Your media does not tend to cover such affairs.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. China has total control over its citizens/illegally occupied territories and look how its abused its power. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen if China had global dominance that US currently enjoys - just someone disengenuous to pretend to ignore it.
I'm guessing the reference is to Taiwan, mainly, but there is no shortage of disputed territories, including Tibet and a number of border regions near India.
China plays a much longer game than the US. But sure, let's say next decade then. Your analogy is poor. I'm describing the behavior of all hegemonic empires in history. You seem to think the US is a special case. Why is that?
You're beating around the bush. If you agree that hegemonic states engaging in imperialism isn't "special", why are you so resistant to the idea that China will behave that way once it has the opportunity? If you ask those in Tibet and Xinjiang they would argue that they already are.
You have a lively imagination with respect to what I hypothetically might intend to say. In fact, I only intended to record the oddity of your objection to thread parent [0]. Apparently we agree that large militarized states are a plague upon humanity. China is too large to see justice in governance, as USA is. However, it will have to change a great deal in twenty years in order to menace the world in the way that USA does. China might be our equal in terms of news and social media totally committed to fear and mistrust of other nations, but they fall far short in terms of a vast rent-seeking self-dealing industrial armaments sector. I'm not even sure that such a sector can arise in the sort of polity they have...
One-dimensional arguments are rarely applicable in trying to discover reasons for, and implications of, foreign policy.
China is one of the most exploitative world powers in its relations with resource-rich developing countries. And it's no stretch to say that without the Soviet push for communism to take root in Latin America, the USA would have had little need to support authoritarian right-wing governments there.
And the USA is the most exploitative country. By far.
It's odd watching US Americans (I presume) attack China while defending their own country's horrendous record (witness your cavalier setting aside of the CIA's evil doings in South and Central America). You simply don't appear to understand that a large number of people don't like super-states and that includes both the USA and China (and also the USSR up until its dissolution).