[bodski]

> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will

Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.

[publicola1990]

Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order".

Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.

[ericmay]

The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to.

If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.

[cma]

The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies.

If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.

[dodobirdlord]

The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances.

Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government.

As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.

[cma]

> The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination.

I think they are valued, but ancillary.

> As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent.

I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may be considerably less likely to unless there was oil exploration going on or it was an important position for an airbase.

[daniel-thompson]

Textbook example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Ygg2]

I think it's textbook definition of Duplicity.

Rules for thee and not for me.

[the_af]

I don't think shouting Whataboutism whenever someone points out US-centric points of view or double standards makes for an interesting conversation.

It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.

[Resurface6349]

Well, in all fairness, it is a powerful way to change the topic while also getting people to sow doubt in a major source of your criticism in the first place, in political contexts.

Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist" when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they, too, can lie.

But at a certain point you realize that things aren't great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.

And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.

Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which are easily exploited.

Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed territory in this day and age, just feels a little disingenuous.

[the_af]

I understand what you're saying, but let's see the other side:

I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards the democratic system they have over there, or their government, just like the US has been historically a mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned with Washington or various American business.

So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one that is respectful of other countries choices and sovereignty, but I'm not responsible for it, and if my criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral system, then how weak must they really be!

So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism" to remind everyone about this, every time a government official says something about China, Russia or whatever country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting international treaties, or using threat of military force to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."

And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a very apt remark.

Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not the US!" feels lazy to me.

[Resurface6349]

I suppose it is a bit of a "mind your own damn business" thing of me to have said it that way, but for what it's worth (and as embarrassing as it may be, considering it's various low ratings compared to it's "middle power" brethren) the US is still barely hanging on to the torch for anti-authoriarian poster child duties, and is easily the biggest obstacle for some other large powers that appear to have an even less stellar track record.

That being said, there might also be some soft spots considering how practically duct taped together this country has been since, always. It's...a unique situation, all things considered.

To be honest though, it still doesn't feel too productive unless the audience still holds an overly optimistic assessment of the whatabout, and even then, it's a bit...Lacking. I'm not sure, it feels like I'm lowering the standards expected overall if I'm simply comparing levels of shitiness relative to other levels of shitiness.

[the_af]

I will say one thing: I really appreciate you replying to me politely and keeping this civil. I understand this is a sensitive topic and I appreciate being able to discuss it, and even disagree, without this turning into a flamewar.