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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rules for thee and not for me.
It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.
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.
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.
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.