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.
It did come with conditions of legal reform and entering the belt and road trade zone.
How many governments have they overthrown for bananas and oil, though?
So?
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?
No I’m implying that whataboutism isn’t an interesting, or useful line of inquiry to respond to.
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.