[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.

[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.