You must log in or register to comment.

drmike0099 t1_j2j7a0c wrote

The headline loses some of the nuance. In developing countries they like the US, China and Russia roughly equally (61-65% approval). In developed countries the difference is huge, with US around 75% but China and Russia as described in the headline.


OpenStars t1_j2pxhgr wrote

I also wondered about this and factors such as education. Like what do educated people think of these nations, compared to e.g. people who don't know as much about those countries? And ofc the two are related: people in democratic nations tend to have a relatively more highly educated populace.


psuedonymously t1_j2jycqp wrote

I would think a pretty sizable portion of the world not living in liberal democracies live in Russia or (particularly) China


LigottiKnows t1_j2kye77 wrote

India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Columbia...etc.

Just some countries of hundreds of millions of people with democracy/capitalist systems which don't, apparently, qualify as "liberal democracies". They don't have largely negative view of China and, except for Ethiopia and Columbia, are all larger than Russia.

Spain is apparently 50-50.

Of course, of "non-liberal" "non-democratic" countries there are Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.

There's a big world out there.


calumin t1_j2l1du9 wrote

From the article:

“We suggest that this new cleavage cannot be reduced to simple economic interests or geopolitical convenience. Rather, it follows a clear political and ideological divide. Across the world, the strongest predictors of how societies align respective to China or the United States are their fundamental values and institutions – including beliefs in freedom of expression, personal choice, and the extent to which democratic institutions are practised and perceived to be legitimate.”

So the author is taking a pretty big swipe at all those countries you mentioned.


MochiMochiMochi t1_j2l4qlk wrote

Many of them were colonized. There is no example quite like China of a people shaking off centuries of exploitative European control and horrific invasions from foreign armies to finally emerge as a superpower in their own right.

That positive view might be largely admiration, if not affection.


CyberneticSaturn t1_j2lm6qn wrote

Tell me you don’t understand Chinese history from the rest of Asia’s perspective without telling me you don’t understand Chinese history from the rest of Asia’s perspective.

None of the Asian countries around China view Chinese history in that manner. They view it as a colonizer that got beaten at its own game.


MochiMochiMochi t1_j2myk7j wrote

Vietnam might, sure. And as well as the Philippines. I'm thinking more about Africa and South America and most notably any country buying arms from China.


Lets_All_Love_Lain t1_j2mh6qj wrote

Yeah I'm sure Japan sees China as a colonizers, good take.


calumin t1_j2l5aee wrote

That is not what the author is attributing positive views of China to be based on.

From my earlier quote from the article, he’s attributing it to 1) lack of belief in freedom of expression, 2) lack of acknowledgement of personal choice, and 3) a poor development of democratic institutions or belief in their legitimacy. And presumably, some kind of affinity to governments that are characterized in such ways.


SplitPerspective t1_j2l701i wrote

The study author seems to be quite biased. You can tell in the verbiage and tone of the labeling.


calumin t1_j2lgmkx wrote

Maybe the whole article, including the facts highlighted in the title, need to be questioned.


fanghornegghorn t1_j2mh107 wrote

Sure. You either believe that democracy and human rights are valuable, or you don't.


Freschledditor t1_j2lthh8 wrote

Or maybe you're biased? If you have a problem with the data, then show it.


Freschledditor t1_j2ltqmt wrote

Uh, what? Typical anti-Western propaganda nonsense... China remained generally uncolonized. They had their own internal wars for millennia, and it culminated in the current very oppressive regime, inspired by russia's very oppressive regime, with russia also never really being colonized. Hong Kong, meanwhile, despite actually being colonized, is much more democratic. At least it was, until China's recent meddling.


DefNotaZombie t1_j2m8z4d wrote

That's a very scientific jargon way to say "they're against us because they hate democracy"


adiking27 t1_j2lyyl0 wrote

I am surprised India doesn't have a Largely negative view towards china. We have many political differences here but the only thing we can agree upon unanimously is that china is indeed gay (not to badmouth gay people). And Xi jing ping is Winnie the pooh.


thisimpetus t1_j2mrtxc wrote

More than half the planet do not live in liberal democracies.


AllanfromWales1 t1_j2j93ec wrote

The power of propaganda..


SplitPerspective t1_j2l85am wrote

Western information superiority and Manufacturing consent is a hell of a drug…


InevitableAd5222 t1_j2n3c53 wrote

You said the exact same thing as the guy below but he is -20 and your +20. Cant tell if the public is stupid and misunderstood you or if your comment had a selection bias of Chomsky fans


Halcyon_Rein t1_j2nw090 wrote

You wanna elaborate on that


AllanfromWales1 t1_j2nytwr wrote

Western propaganda strongly pushes the idea that West is good, Russia is bad. Russian propaganda strongly pushes the idea that Russia is good, West is bad. Both are highly effective tools within their own spheres of influence, most people in the West and most people in Russia believe the propaganda they are exposed to, while people in non-aligned countries, not exposed to either set of propaganda, are less likely to make so simple a judgement.


fitzroy95 t1_j2jco7l wrote

Yup, it shows that western propaganda is just as pervasive and effective as propaganda from China & Russia


dontpet t1_j2jf9on wrote

I think propaganda is quite different between those two groupings.


fitzroy95 t1_j2jfp0v wrote

all are promoting and encouraging blind nationalism plus demonization of the current "enemy"


valcoral t1_j2k06nc wrote

I think you both are right. They are all using propaganda and there are differences in their propaganda.


diladusta t1_j2kfq22 wrote

Russian and chinese propaganda is on a level of its own


fitzroy95 t1_j2kk1gf wrote

US propaganda via its corporate media has a much greater global impact, after all thats what has allowed them to invade, undermine, coup and regime-change nation after nation over the last 150 years, with a body count of foreign civilians in the millions.

Without their corporate media complicity and enablement, their incessant imperialism and warmongering wouldn't have been so successful and widespread for so long.

Russian and Chinese propaganda is mainly aimed at keeping their own populations compliant, US propaganda is aimed at convincing the western world (and their own populations) that US imperialism is acceptable, and all of those dead foreigners is just the price the world needs to pay to allow US corporations to rule the globe.


ApetteRiche t1_j2n6hsa wrote

Correct and the beauty is we can still call the US out for it, including Americans. That wouldn't be the case if China or Russia was in charge.


Resident_Courage1354 t1_j2lqesg wrote

Chinese propaganda is not mainly aimed at its own population.
Do a little research and perhaps you will "see".


jdbolick t1_j2kwjdu wrote

Your comment is proof regarding the effectiveness of Russian propaganda since most of what you're saying is nonsense.

The United States military has never invaded a democracy. Even in nations it did invade, such as Iraq, natural resources were not seized. The majority of post-war Iraqi contracts went to Chinese companies. India ranked second, then U.S. companies were a distant third.

The U.S. also supplies more humanitarian aid annually than the next four nations combined.


jonsterz123 t1_j2l5hv3 wrote

Idk man, the US had interfered with 81 foreign elections between 1946-2000.

Denying realpolitik is a telltale sign of nationalistic propaganda - is it hard to believe that the US fights for its interests in an amoral/immoral way? Or would you rather believe American hegemony is the only exceptional one in all of history?


jdbolick t1_j2l5yd3 wrote

I never claimed that the United States behaved in an entirely benevolent manner, as the CIA has been involved in long list of nefarious behavior. But it is a fact that the U.S. military has never invaded a democracy, unlike Russia. It is a fact that the U.S. did not seize Iraq's resources when it very easily could have, unlike Russia and China. It is also a fact that the U.S. provides the most humanitarian aid to other nations by an enormous amount annually.


jonsterz123 t1_j2l8hjt wrote

Your points don't provide evidence for why you think that the existence of wide-reaching US propaganda that promotes US interventionist foreign policy is just Russian propaganda.

In fact, you chiming in to justify US military intervention when you're replying to a comment about how US propaganda is used to rationalise US military intervention is telling that you are being propagandised into legitimising US military interventions.

Also, is Iraqi oil not a resource?

The fact is the US has no moral high ground in its actions so must find ways to justify protecting and advancing its interests to its population and allies. They do this by media influence today, but states were using religious establishments in the past.


jdbolick t1_j2lanvq wrote

> Your points don't provide evidence for why you think that the existence of wide-reaching US propaganda that promotes US interventionist foreign policy is just Russian propaganda.

They wouldn't because I never said that. I pointed out that Russian propaganda on social media has influenced lesser minds into believing that the U.S. is "just as bad" as Russia when the facts conclusively show otherwise.

> you are being propagandised into legitimising US military interventions.

Pointing out the fact that the United States has never once militarily invaded a democracy is not propaganda, it is important context regarding the nature of its military interventions. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and the Taliban are a heinously repressive regime. Taking military action against them is in no way equivalent to Russia invading Ukraine or China invading Tibet.

> Also, is Iraqi oil not a resource?

Yes, and the majority of post-war Iraqi oil contracts went to China.


jonsterz123 t1_j2leauu wrote

> Your comment is proof regarding the effectiveness of Russian propaganda since most of what you're saying is nonsense.

What do you mean by this then? The guy was saying that US propaganda is widespread and promotes US interventionist foreign policy for the benefit of US corporations, is that part nonsense or do you mean something else is nonsense?

At the end of the day we can agree to disagree.

You think US interventionist policy is justified because other countries are fucked up and need fixing. (Or at least more justifiable than other countries foreign interventions).

I think that the above justification is US propaganda fed to lesser minds to distract them from the idea that US interventions are ultimately for the benefit for the US and disregard the welfare of those being interfered with.

I think the US gov never really moved away from Kissinger style realpolitik and just learnt a lesson from the outcome of Vietnam War in managing the internal optics of military intervention. You can't let your own population think you're the bad guy.


jdbolick t1_j2lgwfy wrote

> The guy was saying that US propaganda is widespread and promotes US interventionist foreign policy for the benefit of US corporations, is that part nonsense or do you mean something else is nonsense?

I already explained this, so either you have spectacularly poor reading comprehension or you are pretending not to understand because you don't want to acknowledge my point.

He said: "Russian and Chinese propaganda is mainly aimed at keeping their own populations compliant, US propaganda is aimed at convincing the western world (and their own populations) that US imperialism is acceptable, and all of those dead foreigners is just the price the world needs to pay to allow US corporations to rule the globe."

The claim that Russian propaganda is mainly inward is clearly false, as Russia has engaged in sweeping measures throughout social media to promote foreign candidates (e.g. Trump) and causes (e.g. Brexit) that benefit Russian interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. is not even imperialist, much less using propaganda to justify imperialism. U.S. media coverage of military involvements has been mostly negative, spurring significant public resistance against them.

> You think US interventionist policy is justified because other countries are fucked up and need fixing.

I'm saying that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are extremely different from Zelensky and the Dalai Lama.

> US interventions are ultimately for the benefit for the US

Again, the majority of Iraqi oil post-war has gone to China, not the United States. The U.S. could have easily just taken those resources and did not. Giving the Iraqi government that autonomy doesn't undo the civilians who died as a result of the invasion, but it does prove you wrong regarding the motives behind the invasion.

> You can't let your own population think you're the bad guy.

Yet the U.S. media is relentlessly negative toward U.S. actions abroad, and no one complains more about America than a certain section of Americans.


Bloody__Penguin t1_j2lfz31 wrote

Yea, us patriotic Americans love our war crimes committed by guerilla groups and terrorists.

We would never subvert a democracy with boots on the ground like those savage Russians. We only sponsor terrorist groups , give them intel and sit idly by while they slaughter civilians or help the military establish a dictatorship because we love democracy so much!

Also it's totally cool to invade dictatorships because we are the world police and need to intervene and massacre civilians ourself.

Please read "manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky if you would actually like to educate yourself on how western media propaganda works vs totalitarian propaganda.


Resident_Courage1354 t1_j2lqr9g wrote

You're right on Chinese propaganda, but you're really missing the point and looking at things too black and white with the defense of America.
America is as evil as it gets.


BlishBlash t1_j2lawym wrote

I'm not sure about the positivity towards Russia, but with China it makes sense because they've been building a lot of infrastructure and strengthening relationships globally.


ApetteRiche t1_j2n69ao wrote

Question is how long that positivity towards China will last. From my understanding China is offering to build infrastructure in poorer countries by giving them a loan. However, if they are unable to pay the loan back in a certain amount of time, China becomes the owner of said infrastructure.


Lostmyfnusername t1_j2nt9mg wrote

I heard that before but never understood why it was bad. Is it predatory in some way? If I can't pay off my mortgage then the bank takes my house.


Halcyon_Rein t1_j2nvqw8 wrote

Because the loan is designed to be unpayable and the only reason the governments of these nations even agree to the loans is because their officials are completely bought. The people of these nations end up suffering. It isn’t their corrupt political system that foots the bill.


ApetteRiche t1_j2nvkzu wrote

You don't understand how it's important for a country to be in charge of their own infrastructure?


Whitehatdvl t1_j2nzgd7 wrote

The bank shouldn't be giving you a loan if they don't think you can pay it off, most governments have protections in place to prevent predatory practices like that. The people China is making loans to probably don't have protections like that and also probably don't have people educated enough to look at these offers and realize that they are predatory, they just really want to have the infrastructure.


Discount_gentleman t1_j2lc65s wrote

Yup. And Americans will say the difference is because of other countries' propaganda, and never look in the mirror, or even imagine that a mirror could exist.


Freschledditor t1_j2ltxid wrote

The difference is that you are much more likely to get the full picture in a democracy, not a dictatorship.


Discount_gentleman t1_j2n1y0p wrote

The problem, of course, is that words like "democracy" and "dictatorship" are such poor categorizations of countries as a whole. The US is not "a democracy" by any objective standard, nor is the category of "dictatorship" (exclusively used for countries on the official enemies list) particularly clarifying or helpful in this context. Our media is EXTREMELY concentrated and they all have extremely similar views, especially on international events. Again, your comment is an example of people who cannot look into the mirror.


Lmitation t1_j2m4jcc wrote

Every mention of China on Reddit people bring up the forced labor camps of Uyghurs which I agree are terrible, but not a single American has taken a look at American incarceration rates vs rest of the world and the forced for profit prison labor that goes into running them. It's frankly disgusting how quick they are to be ready to sanction war on another country while having by far the largest volume of questionable human rights treatment of its prisoners in the world. Stop falling for government propaganda. It's what sucked the USA into Vietnam war and the same tactics are being used to support war against China.


SexyOldHobo t1_j2k8k2l wrote

China never had the brutal imperialism that defined western economics the past few centuries, so they have a blank slate. They certainly have their problems, but violence in the recent centuries has been largely domestic, they didn’t have a recent slave trade and certainly weren’t aggressors in WWII. They’ve always been insular


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2kb8u5 wrote

Can we really take them seriously if they haven't ruthlessly pillaged a country for it's natural resources while at the same time turning it's cities into a charnal house? Don't forget to loot the central bank on your way out! Thanks, Iraq!


Rafaeliki t1_j2oeij1 wrote

My Tibetan friend is saying this all the time.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2oiwrn wrote

He liked it better when the Dalai Lama was running a quasi-feudal allotment of fiefdoms for wealthy local barons, gotcha. Do you also have a friend who was a Cuban casino owner under Batista? Or maybe they owned a brothel?


Rafaeliki t1_j2ojcrg wrote

This is the same argument that colonialism apologists make to defend Western colonialism.

Batista was overthrown by his own people in a revolution. Tibet is occupied by China.

Like, are you a fan of Saddam Hussein or something? Do you think Hussein being a horrible dictator justifies the US invasion of Iraq?


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2ok1lo wrote

Indeed, Western intelligence operators are becoming increasingly adept at weaving the emancipatory language of liberation into their screeds. Fortunately, the immortal science, along with a careful inspection of actual historical precedent, allows us to separate the proverbial wheat from the epistemological chaff.


Rafaeliki t1_j2okuut wrote

That's just a fancy way to say imperialism is fine when China does it.

Emancipatory language never justifies imperialism whether it is the US or China.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2olzl2 wrote

>That's just a fancy way to say imperialism is fine when China does it.

No it isn't, and if that's what your interpretation is, then you need to buck up on your reading comprehension.

It's saying that we have the history available, and China's imperial footprint has been minimal, almost negligible when compared against the US or nearly any European nation. They've acknowledged their overreach in Vietnam, there's little to accuse them of beyond that. But go off, king.


Rafaeliki t1_j2om9d6 wrote

You just a second ago justified Chinese imperialism in the case of Tibet.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2orh23 wrote

As I pointed out previously, Tibet as it existed prior to Chinese intervention was far more feudal and impoverished by every measurable metric. Compare that against, oh I don't know, Haiti or maybe Guatemala. The comparison is startling.


Rafaeliki t1_j2ov0vr wrote

You can say that about a lot of colonized nations.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2oy30x wrote

No you can't. I specifically noted two nations where that's not the case, and there are dozens if not hundreds more.


farrowsharrows t1_j2kdq13 wrote

Turns out that when you read the article this take doesn't really hold up


SexyOldHobo t1_j2kgcbz wrote

Pretty biased study with a narrow scope


Freschledditor t1_j2lukf4 wrote

Narrow??? "30 global survey projects that collectively span 137 countries which represent 97% of world population"???

Face it, you just don't like the truth, so you unconstructively dismiss it.


farrowsharrows t1_j2kgnbr wrote

Yeah so Truman isn't considered a weak leader in history. You are a pretty biased commenter


QuantumInteger t1_j2lolgu wrote

China is most certainly an aggressor state. They got that big by conquering their neighbors over several thousand years. You can ask the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, the Hainanese, Cantonese, or the people living on Formosa before it became Taiwan. China was an imperial power long before Western countries even mastered gunpowder.


malusfacticius t1_j2lwjpa wrote

That’s a wide stretch of definition by which very few (if there are at all) civilizations today can be categorize as “non-imperial”.

Think Korea. About the three little dots on the south of the peninsula they began with. Imperial for them to “grow” big via good ‘ol conquest and assimilation. The Japanese, their relatively recent imperial history and repression on the Ainu aside, didn’t begin with the single-race (Yamato) state we know today - where did the Hayato, Kumaso and Emishi people go? Makes your eyes roll!

You’ll find the world filled with “aggressor states” this way, that either started last year or in the neolithic times. Doesn’t make much sense other than diluting “imperialism” with anthropological whataboutism.


James_Solomon t1_j2nrjf8 wrote

>China never had the brutal imperialism that defined western economics the past few centuries, so they have a blank slate.

The Qing Dynasty would beg to differ.


2515chris t1_j2k4zkg wrote

We can love the people but find their governments repugnant. Hell I hate my government too.


paceminterris t1_j2lq4t8 wrote

This is just your excuse to persuade yourself into a war while still feeling that you're not racist or dehumanizing anyone.

The fact of the matter is, many Chinese and Russian people aren't simply "Americans on the inside, waiting to be freed from oppressive government." They rightfully appreciate the things that work about their governments, and the plurality of people in those countries aren't overly opposed to the government, otherwise there would already have been revolutions.

For you to think that those people somehow need to be "rescued" into the arms of the American-dominated liberal international (really, just imperial) order is the height of chauvanism.


Freschledditor t1_j2lueb0 wrote

Funny, I agree with your assessment of russians and chinese people, but not with your conclusion of blaming the West. The reality is, russians are broadly fascist imperialists, which is why they're fine with living in a dictatorship. Chinese people as well, but less so, since they're more interested in actual prosperity, while russians want to play war games and take lands.


fanghornegghorn t1_j2mh62s wrote

You either believe that people deserve democracy and human rights or you don't. Most Americans do.


oldar4 t1_j2k5yl9 wrote

People are what make up governments. The problem is any position of power corrupts most people. Like crazy HOA members. Or cops. Or politicians. Anyone who gets an ounce of power has a strong chance of corruption.


giomar420 t1_j2knaxv wrote

People is what makes government, but people are not the government. You can have friendly relations with people but a non existent relation with those people government. As example see many nations that share borders and political conflicts too.


shanghaidry t1_j2ltcnr wrote

I used to live in China. I was not impressed with the average person. The government there acts like any other individual or organization — if you have power, you don’t share. If they had elections with their same culture and institutions, it would be something between what they have now and a disaster.


Easy-Bumblebee3169 t1_j2knmmg wrote

Keep in mind people in liberal democracies are more likely to be educated and have access to higher education, where critical thinking and being able to verify sources are incentivized. There is more freedom of speech and criticism of China and Russia is less likely to be suppressed.


BlishBlash t1_j2las15 wrote

>where critical thinking and being able to verify sources are incentivized

I really wish I had your optimism.


Ghoulius-Caesar t1_j2ksb44 wrote

Yes, I don’t like countries that oppress their people (ie: Uighur’s in China) or invade other countries (ie: Russia). As an educated person from a liberal democracy I’m smashing that dislike button when it comes to those dictatorships.


Intrepid-Astronaut41 t1_j2kztkw wrote

How about the U.S? We destabilize countries for fun and profit. We actively seek to control media. We oppress our own people and those of other countries. I believe that if you did your research, you’d find all this to be true. Do you dislike the U.S.?


SplitPerspective t1_j2l76y6 wrote

Don’t worry, only freedom of speech and guns matter. As long as you have those, you can feel better than everyone else.


JackSpyder t1_j2l4zf6 wrote

I'm from the UK and don't like what my country does too. Or the US. Or China or Russia.

If I was picking somewhere to live and raise children and work. I'd be picking more liberal democracies though.


shadow1515 t1_j2l7nv4 wrote

A lot of people in the US do, in fact, very vocally dislike it when those things happen. The thing about a representative democracy is that the country can still do things that a lot of citizens, sometimes even an actual majority of the voting public, do not approve of.


porkchopnet t1_j2l167l wrote

These things have happened in the US but are they as common or egregious in the US as they are in (for example) Russia or China in the past few decades?

Can you honestly say (or find quality research that says) that the media in those countries are more free from government control than their US counterparts? That the people are less oppressed? That they use their influence to destabilize rivals less?

While I would think not I welcome quality research to challenge my assumption.


SplitPerspective t1_j2l7v5x wrote

Vietnam war, Mai Lai massacre, Kent state shootings, operation rolling thunder, Iraq war, Afghanistan, patriot act, indefinite opening of Guantanamo…on and on.

The fact is, the average person isn’t affected by those things that have passed, or are not affected by policies and institutions currently, despite persistent human rights abuses to others.

Same thing in China, if the average person has the standard freedoms, the average person either shows apathy or ignorance to bigger issues.

People like to parrot lack of freedom this lack of freedom that in China, but it’s not as simplistic as it seems. For certain things, there are more freedoms in China, but you probably dismissed that idea and think no where is more free than your own country right? Again, apathy and ignorance is a sickness.


porkchopnet t1_j2lqojo wrote

You are citing anecdotes not data. This is /r/science. How about defendable research?

Fortunately, there are actual quantafiable metrics that clearly show human freedoms on an index:

USA scores 83/100.
China is 9/100.
Russia is 19.

Its not even close.


SplitPerspective t1_j2m2060 wrote

Human freedom on an index, created by a liberal democracy. If you can’t even understand that when it comes to geopolitics, everything is biased, then you’re already stuck within the bounds of the system with a biased lens.

Case in point, millions of Chinese travel outside of China every year. If it’s so bad, you’d expect a mass exodus and/or asylum seekers. Then there are “expats” from liberal democracies retiring in China.


MeetMelodic9314 t1_j2lgkp2 wrote

Well, for one China never supported a coup to overthrow democracy here in Brazil, that already makes them much better than our great protector of democracy up in the north


Strange-Ad1209 t1_j2jrerf wrote

Well I'd first wonder what kind of governments the people in the non liberal democracies are living under, because in most Authoritarian regimes you don't get to have any form of unapproved opinion. If your rulers like China and Russia so you had better as well, or don't say a word it will probably be your last.


Freschledditor t1_j2lunih wrote

In reality, most of them do agree with the dictatorial government, or don't care. Otherwise, it would be like Iran.


teb_art t1_j2jx7o0 wrote

Well, China “grooms” some of the undeveloped countries by buying their coal or building some roads.


Meiray t1_j2l07sl wrote

Yes, but the US does this too, and usually tries to push for government reform on top of that. Unless we're talking about oil-producing nations, then we suck up to or go to war with most of them, no matter how shady their governments. Say what you will about them, but China doesn't strong arm the countries it does business with into adopting Communist policies as a pre-condition.

It's a little early to be more than wary of China's Belt and Road - these are countries, many of them African, which are looking to develop infrastructure and see China as a viable alternative to Western countries they feel neglect or ask too much of them. We'll see what debt really restructuring looks like in future (see: Sri Lanka and Montenegro) and what the quality of the work is over time. Until then, the only course of action is to be wary but also keep an open mind and be mindful of how our reputation isn't spotless. We can't always reflexively oppose everything China does, especially with Russia showing its true colors these days. There has to be some room to partner with China while still nudging them towards a less repressive government.


TheRealGeoffPerson t1_j2m3qul wrote

By ‘asking too much’, you mean requiring certain reforms in exchange for money. It would be funny to see anyone try and argue that the reforms they want don’t directly benefit the citizens of these countries, particularly Africa.


Meiray t1_j2n5pzh wrote

I also mean that the interest rates a lot of Western countries offer for financing these projects are often less favorable.

But what you're talking about is a non-starter with a lot of governments. You can make those arguments until you are blue in the face, and I am sure you and I would agree about their merits, but again - China would offer the same assistance without that pre-condition. On the surface it looks to be purely transactional, whereas the US could be seen as being too pushy. It's like if a bank agreed to loan you money for a home renovation but demanded they get to pick the construction materials. If you look back at all the corrupt regimes the US has aligned with over the years from Zaire to Saudi Arabia, and the ones we continue to give billions in aid to, plus our litany of military interventions... there's a reason why it's harder to pin the imperialist moniker on China when we can never wash it off.

I am willing to defend a lot of American principles, but I am under no illusion as to why a lot of people around the world think we are arrogant and hypocritical AF. That doesn't mean we have to stop pushing for reforms in exchange for infrastructure money, but a rising China now offers a tantalizing alternative for these countries and any thrifty buyer knows it's smart to comparison shop.


SpecificFail t1_j2kt8gq wrote

And some developed countries by propping up their leaders and businesses. China has been slowly buying up large parts of the world economy over the last 16 years or so.


teb_art t1_j2kvv3q wrote

And they are not doing it for the benefit of the people they are “helping.”


TheRealGeoffPerson t1_j2m3ka0 wrote

Exactly. The modern norm of mutual benefit is completely absent from China’s foreign policy. It is designed to enslave from the very beginning, just like the colonialism they claim to have never been party to.


Petal_Chatoyance t1_j2kfg9y wrote

The reason should be obvious.

In a liberal democracy, people generally have uncensored access to the internet and information and can make up their own minds, and they would naturally look down on authoritarian/totalitarian nations.

In authoritarian/totalitarian nations information is rigidly controlled, and the populace is instructed who and what is considered an enemy - who to hate, and why it is 'patriotic' to hate them. There is no choice. Democratic nations are a natural threat to authoritarian/totalitarian nations because their existence denies the superiority of a single, absolute power in control and risks their own populations demanding democracy and freedom.


Jaded-Protection-402 t1_j2me2f7 wrote

In the second paragraph, not sure if you were describing China or the US


Rafaeliki t1_j2of2yf wrote

Some people are so myopically focused on valid criticism of the United States that they get brain worms and think that means that they also have to pretend that things are better in Russia and China and hell there is a contingent that is huge DPRK fans.


stewartm0205 t1_j2kqy6v wrote

What’s a liberal democracy? There are plenty of democracies where a majority of the people don’t hate Russia or China. Most of them have no opinion on either.


starfish42134 t1_j2lw68g wrote

We need this info laid out on a map with all 137 country & 3 colours for fav country, America,Russia or China


neuronexmachina t1_j2nszw7 wrote

Figure 6 of the publication basically shows that for China vs US favorability. Also figures 16 and 18.


Avalanche2 t1_j2kbbi0 wrote

Wow, it's almost like we are being force fed propaganda by state run media?


lilwayne168 t1_j2l4c4v wrote

Google china's belt and road program that's a huge part of it.


[deleted] t1_j2ll8hm wrote

Ask someone to take care of every aspect of your life, and you may not be able to ask for anything back ever again.


AutoModerator t1_j2j3zvp wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


54B45B8FC7732C78F3DE t1_j2mxdx1 wrote

I wonder what the impressions of North Korea are compared to China and Russia? Personally, I worry more about North Korea, followed by Russia, then China.


espressocycle t1_j2n4zqg wrote

Russia and China invest heavily in the developing world, especiallyin authoritarian countries that don't get a lot of support from the US or are under sanctions.


venrilmatic t1_j2np9t2 wrote

Because they heard China is run by Winnie the Pooh….


neuronexmachina t1_j2ntanb wrote

I thought this part of the paper's conclusion was pretty interesting:

>Yet today’s geopolitical divide does not depend upon historical ties or cultural affinity. Rather, it finds its basis within politics and political ideology: namely, whether regimes are democratic or authoritarian, and whether societies are liberal or illiberal in their fundamental view of life. In the first category are maritime societies based on trade, the free flow of peoples and ideas, and the protection of individual rights: in this grouping we find the countries of western Europe, the settler societies of both North and South America and Australasia, as well as high-income insular democracies in North Pacific Asia. By contrast, the second cate- gory is comprised of historically land-based, continental empires: Iran, Russia, Central Asia, China, and the Arab Middle East. In that sense, comparisons with the Cold War are not entirely mistaken. For even though this latter grouping spans the full range of political in- stitutions and ideologies – from Islamism to secular communism, and from traditionalist monarchism to mass movement populism – they are united in their rejection of western modernity, and its associated political and social alternative.


nonarkitten t1_j2nybo8 wrote

I feel like the word "liberal" has basically lost all meaning.

If by giving freedom to the wealthy to exploit the working class (the 99% of us) then yeah, that's not very "liberal."


Rafaeliki t1_j2ofrwj wrote

This is a Cambridge study and "liberal" means something different in the UK than it does in the US.


nonarkitten t1_j2ooans wrote

Good point. I accept the UK definition of liberal.

It's annoying that there's two.


JDSweetBeat t1_j2nypww wrote

China offers them loans with better terms than western backed loans through the IMF and World Bank, and is more likely to just forgive the debt than those western institutions. Why wouldn't they prefer China over the west?

And popular opinion of Russia is probably riding off the positive boost created by the role the Soviet Union played in the anti-colonialist movement (the USSR often gave weapons and funding to popular movements that opposed western-backed/western-controlled governments).


Antilf t1_j2qv4mb wrote

It shows how (un)informed people are.


aphilsphan t1_j2nhj2v wrote

Democracies aren’t perfect, but they are much more transparent than authoritarian states. People see and read about the imperfections of democracies which our own politicians and press publicize. But Russian problems can be hidden to some degree and most people are unsophisticated and can’t see the subtle differences.

China shows how a regime that is only going to steal some of the wealth generated, and will allow a fairly large elite to get in on the theft (as opposed to the DPRK, where the grift is quite limited), can be popular. There are a lot of crumbs left over in China for the mass of people. So what to Americans is abject poverty is actually a huge improvement and will look really good to people in places like Africa. Their governments aren’t delivering, comparatively China’s does.

For Russia in the West there is also this weird, “well they are Christians and are defending ‘whiteness.’” In the USA, Orthodox ritual would make our Fundamentalists puke, but it is safely in Russia so it’s ok.


Own_Thought902 t1_j2k7wds wrote

Can you say "Anti-Communist Propaganda"?


js1138-2 t1_j2l4c14 wrote

Are China and Russia Communist?


Own_Thought902 t1_j2l4uns wrote

Umm..Yes. China since 1949 and Russia since 1917.

EDIT:. I checked. The Russian Communist Party is now the second largest political party. So I guess Russia is now just a straight up dictatorship. Or Oligarchy. Authoritarian, at least.


js1138-2 t1_j2l668a wrote

Odd sort of communism. I see no inclination to eliminate personal wealth.


Aardark235 t1_j2lcm18 wrote

China is the largest capitalist society. The economic model bears little semblance to communism except for complicated property ownership schemes.

If I had $10B and wanted to build a mega factory, it will get built faster in China compared to anywhere else in the world.


MrJuniperBreath t1_j2l7d04 wrote

I wonder how the Uygers feel about China.


Slimmer_Virgo t1_j2lsf7l wrote

Probably how the same as how Cherokee feel about the US.


Lmitation t1_j2m4uxb wrote

Don't even have to go back in time at all, for profit prison with forced labor is still happening today


Lmitation t1_j2m4szi wrote

I wonder how the forced labor slaves of the largest incarcerated population in the world of for profit persons feel about America


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2kagr7 wrote

It's almost as if a constant feed of corn syrup, NFL Football, and jingoistic agitprop makes for a misinformed populace and general citizenry, crazy! Whelp, time to go make another giant weapons shipment while my critical infrastructure decays all around me, wish me luck!


farrowsharrows t1_j2kdymo wrote

Article doesn't support your nonsense


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2kiklw wrote

Yes, it does. We've done vigorous and stringent research, sponsored by Monster Energy Drink.