Over the last 70 years, this has been the pattern of US foreign policy: Destabilising countries in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America, for narrow economic or ideological benefits. It is all too easy to justify it as “our meddling” is for the greater good and “others meddling” is evil and undemocratic. There is no distinction. Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2. China in many ways has exhibited a path to a more benign and progressive foreign policy (not without its own imperfections).
I was not claiming China does not have faults. Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive. My real point is the hypocrisy of the west, that we cannot objectively see the problems with instigating coupe against governments that challenges our selfish economic interests.
After all, the American public wasn't told they're gonna invade $middle_eastern_country for their economic interest, but for freedom.
And the (US side) costs of war are borne by all taxpayers, while the benefits accrue to a handful of corporations. I'd wager that, taken together, these costs outweigh the benefits. But the (rarely named by the media) corporations don't bear much of the costs.
As for CIA coups, well, they don't get much air time in the 24-hour news cycle, do they?
> If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror.
-- Hannah Arendt
It may be a stretch, but it occured to me that one could say that the US increased internal repression to protect the external repression, while China now increases external repression to protect internal repression.
> At the same time, I can see where Marriott is coming from. I can’t imagine how much money it cost them to have their website and app blocked in China for a week, and unfortunately Jones was a “sacrifice” that they made to appease China and probably avoid a similar punishment again.
Not that I want to equate that with a war of aggression, but I don't find that progressive. Though I agree with
> Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2
I would even generalize it beyond the US. And that's really the only constructive way out of this I see, to own up to one's own past and crimes, stop repeating them, and to not partake in the crimes of others, and supporting them in owning up to theirs. I fully admit that saying that is dumb, but doing that, that would be genius.
When two or more elephants engage in a dick waving contest the grass goes blind. We are people, not nations. The "leaders" of our nations for the most part don't serve us, and don't speak for us. Let's not forget that.
Ahh yes! China, that benign and progressive of states.
Nevermind destroying all freedom of speech, oppressing minorities, actively engaging in destroying (mostly by actively diluting) non han nationalities within china. What are you talking about?
China’s foreign policy is not benign. It is currently using its economic muscle to force 65 sovereign nations into debt traps that reproduce the unequal treaties and extrajudicial leases of late-stage colonialism.
Until recently China ran a foreign policy of stability. But they have changed gears now, pursuing unilateral goals with increasing aggressiveness, also filling the power vacuum left by the waning US.
Those same countries have the option to go to the World Bank for loans, the problem is the World Bank is used to enforce Western ideals onto different cultures in return for the loans.
The Chinese loans come with no strings attached other than the infrastructure being the collateral if the country can't pay.
Could you please clarify? Are you saying that it's alright to overthrow foreign governments for access to their resources, or that debt traps disguised as foreign aid are worse?
We are in the context of an article about a CIA operation to overthrow an Iranian government, in a comment thread about China having benign foreign policy. I don't think comparing China to the US is whataboutism in this context.
Whataboutism is a rhetorical technique and not a context dependent determination. If I say “X is bad”, you following up with “but Y is also bad!” is not a logical argument. It carries no persuasive weight in rational discourse.
Foreign policy-wise, he’s probably accurate. That’s more of a comment on how destructive the US has been internationally. He’s not necessarily saying China’s is objectively good.
was not claiming China does not have faults. Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive. My real point is the hypocrisy of the west, that we cannot objectively see the problems with instigating coupe against governments that challenges our selfish economic interests.
China’s foreign policy is essentially a defensive stance. It wants to protect what it considers it’s rightful sphere of influence. Compare with the US with it’s bases around the world.
You don’t get to pick an arbitrary “sphere of influence” that includes the sovereign territory of other nations and then claim you’re being purely defensive when you demand total control inside it. China’s actions re: Tibet, Taiwan and the South China Sea are as bad as anything the United States is doing, just more geographically localized.
Which two? Mali is a few hundred troops assisting the government. Not sure if that qualifies as an invasion.
Vietnam the most recent in 1979 and lasted for two weeks in response to the Vietnamese government attempting to annex Cambodia and Laos, both of which were Chinese allies.
No, I don't. Iraq didn't pose any sort of threat to those allies. We made things way worse for them and it was entirely foreseeable. We invaded for some combination of stupid political reasons and revenge.
Yet many people are currently begging the US to intervene in with Yeman, Ukraine, and the Myanmar rohingya muslim situation.
Criticism in hindsight is easy, how much worse would things have been if the US hadn't fought communism? Stalin killed 20+ million, Mao 50+ million, Pol Pot 2+ million. Without US intervention Large chunks of South America and Africa would have been competing for the communism kill high score.
Personally I don't want the US intervening because we get criticized no matter what we do and we'd save trillions
> Eventually the US needs to come to terms with the massively destructive impact it has had on the world since WW2
Is this a joke? The world since WW2 is the most peaceful it has ever been in human history. The economic and military superiority of the US is one of the main reasons why this is so.
> It is all too easy to justify it as “our meddling” is for the greater good and “others meddling” is evil and undemocratic. There is no distinction.
There is an obvious distinction: different countries seek to promote different, and opposing, interests. The world Russia seeks to create is very different from the world the US seeks to create. Instead of thinking this is about the universal morality of “meddling”, you should ask yourself: in which world would you prefer to live in?
That aside, it’s obvious that the US foreign policy has very often been very poorly designed. But claiming that we should be as upset about US meddling as about Russian or Chinese meddling is quite absurd. People in the West are upset about Russian meddling precisely because it is Russian, and promotes Russian interests that go against Western values, not because they think “meddling is wrong” in some universal sense.
> Imagine if China instigated a coup in a Middle Eastern country. The outrage would be massive.
Indeed. Why would anybody living in the West would want Middle Eastern countries controlled by China? That this would be met by outrage is a testament to the positive influence the US has on the world. I would much rather see the ME countries turn into western-style democracies through US meddling, than into Chinese puppets through Chinese meddling. That the former can’t be achieved, and any attempt of achieving it will likely be counterproductive, is a separate matter.
But it seems to me like you are misconstructing the issue: you seem to think that when people oppose "Chinese meddling", they do it because they believe foreign meddling is universally immoral, and they are therefore hypocritical when they don't similarly condemn US meddling. But that’s simply not the case: People want meddling that promotes the kind of world they want to see, and don’t want meddling that goes against it. There is nothing hypocritical about this.
This is factually incorrect. I suggest you read Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" to understand that the world, even outside of the West, has been getting significantly better in pretty much every metric since WW2, including scale and number of wars. The only difference is that today it is much easier to get exposed to the existence of various conflicts that nobody in the West would've even been aware of in the past.
Given the long-term consequences of overthrowing the Iranian government, I cannot help but wonder if people involved in US foreign politics secretly wish that the operation had failed. It might have saved the world a lot of trouble later on.
And somehow, this seems to be a recurring pattern in the foreign politics of the USA (although I suspect one could easily find many examples for other countries, too) - "solutions" that in the long run cause far bigger problems than the ones they were meant to solve in the first place.
On the other hand, that pattern is hardly exclusive to politics, so maybe it is just human nature at work.
But then Khomeini came along, the Shah was overthrown, and today, Iran supports the Syrian government, rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Plus, the US and Israeli governments have been a making a lot of noise about possible Iranian plans to build nuclear weapons. These days, I think, it would be very convenient for the USA, if Iran still was a secular democracy they could be on friendly terms with.
Certainly there are people who consider the coup against Mossadegh a worthwhile investment. But there were some, uh, unforeseen repercussions.
Since WW2 the US has been involved in actual or attempted regime change on average every two and a half years. Interestingly, or rather significantly, the last two attempts, Syria and Turkey (confirmation pending but likely), failed.
