Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AbjectAttrition t1_iy0ijxr wrote

>“China has benefitted from the rules-based international order to grow and prosper, but it is now actively seeking to reinterpret these rules to gain greater advantage.”

Joly is giving the game away with this quote. "Rules-based order" has always truly meant "a world order in which the USA and its close allies get to make and enforce the rules."

−31

aerospacemonkey t1_iy0nkd1 wrote

> and its close allies

Imagine being upset that several countries get to discuss what's fair for the group and coming to agreement in a democratic order, instead of a single country bullying weaker countries into submission.

33

dxiao t1_iy1nwge wrote

>several countries get to discuss what’s fair for the group

Why would countries that are excluded from this discussion and fairness be happy about it?

−3

Lolwut100494 t1_iy0ugl1 wrote

Wait are you talking about China or US whe you mentioned bullying? I seriously have trouble telling sometimes.

−4

AbjectAttrition t1_iy0oxzd wrote

>Imagine being upset that several countries get to discuss what's fair for the group

As in, fair to them and their own financial interests. Ya know, the ones that have plundered the Global South for centuries.

>a single country bullying weaker countries into submission.

What do you think America has been doing to the entire world since the end of WWII?

−13

Maranaranag t1_iy2w53b wrote

Imagine for a second that it was China instead of the US in a similar position. Would you rather live in that world or this one?

6

Ancient_Arr t1_iy1hk53 wrote

whataboutisms lazy af

2

dxiao t1_iy1o6g0 wrote

Rebuttals using fact is difficult, generalizing an argument as whataboutism is lazy af

−8

awildhorsepenis t1_iy2tbey wrote

if the second world war was the biggest conflict on earth, and the US won the war in the pacific, and most of the earth is comprised on oceans, the pacific being the largest…

What was the prize for winning WW2?

The world.

−1

Zargabraath t1_iy1e5xe wrote

Textbook tankie trash

9

[deleted] t1_iy1hsj5 wrote

[removed]

−2

Zargabraath t1_iy1n5go wrote

and what are you doing here exactly? there are many dark corners of reddit that are echochambers where moronic ideologies like yours are welcome and anything else is banned

this is not one of them

2

Maranaranag t1_iy2w047 wrote

I don't understand why we have to hide behind a veneer of kumbaya here. Notwithstanding the challenges the US faces, for many people, living a quiet, safe life in a nice clean suburb is preferable. Plenty of immigrants to western countries prove this. They are just better places to live and raise children. How many people are lining up to live in Russian apartment blocks or to be social-creditized in China? Next to none.

So, yes - one is preferable over the other and I don't see why we have to give equal time to oppressive systems.

China had plenty of thousands of years of their civilization to have a say in the world, but were so arrogant that they imagined themselves at the center of it. Now, somehow they want to globalize their tribute system? Sorry - no thanks.

7

AbjectAttrition t1_iy3tkgp wrote

This sort of psychotic comment is what you get when you unironically believe America is the best country in the world and all others are hellscapes with nothing to offer.

−2

DemSocCorvid t1_iy4udp6 wrote

The West is objectively a better region to live, and the rest of the world has less to offer. Say what you will about "why" that is, but that is the case currently.

2

Vinlandien t1_iy61vk2 wrote

> "Rules-based order" has always truly meant "a world order in which the USA and its close allies get to make and enforce the rules."

You mean a collection of countries from around the world who have worked together diplomatically to establish a set order of rules that each have agreed to follow in order to prevent conflicts and increase mutual prosperity?

Those same rules that other nations have agreed to abide by in order to have access to this trade market, only to then break the rules and then get angry when the countries they lied to slowly stop doing business with them, while still giving them time to change their behaviors in order to maintain good relations and continued business?

God forbid lol

0

AbjectAttrition t1_iy65qqq wrote

You vastly overestimate the how much of the world’s population actually lives in the West lol. Easy to defend the system that largely benefits us, after all.

0

Vinlandien t1_iy801b0 wrote

It's not just the west who abides by these rules, 196 countries have agreed to obey the Geneva conventions and signed on to it, including Russia who is now breaking them.

Diplomacy is a negotiation, and these laws and treaties were not written by a single nation, or a small collection of regional nations, but by many nations found around the globe over time to ensure peace and prosperity.

0

AbjectAttrition t1_iy8ftsx wrote

You've lost the plot. This is about trade, not war crimes.

0

Vinlandien t1_iy8ga1c wrote

Its about both. Trade laws exist to prevent conflicts, which can lead to war.

Sanctions are a response to conflict imposed on trade. Diplomacy can help alleviate conflict and restore trade.

The rules exist for peaceful coexistence.

0

AbjectAttrition t1_iy8hb69 wrote

No, the article is specifically focusing on trade relations. Trade rules that have largely and disproportionately benefitted the USA and its allies. It has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions and other humanitarian agreements meant to clamp down on human suffering across the board. That's not how this works at all.

0

Vinlandien t1_iy8i7hf wrote

You're simply wrong.

Trade relations are built of mutual respect and an adherence to agreed upon rules for mutual peace and prosperity.

If one party if breaking the rules, stealing IP rights to make knock offs, underpaying their workers or using slave labor to outcompete, using banned chemicals or materials that can cause consumer to become sick or die, or any number of possible breech of the rules, then those trade relations are going to sour and conflict is much more likely to break out.

Which rules do you think benefit the US and its Allies in particular that don't benefit other nations? Not using Child slaves? Not making lead based toys? Not selling contaminated or diseased meat? Sanctioning countries that commit war crimes from the international market?

Do go on and explain the reasoning behind your statement, because the rules apply to all sides equally, and only seem to benefit those who cheat and break them.

0

AbjectAttrition t1_iy8itu0 wrote

You've really lost the plot here, dude. If you're actually interested in knowing why China is overtaking the USA in trade, this infographic uses information from the IMF and gives some of the reasoning behind China's rise in the past few decades.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/biggest-trade-partner-of-each-country-1960-2020/

If you just want to keep trying to equate China making trade agreements in Africa and Latin America to literal war crimes being committed, feel free.

0