> China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation?

Has it been? Where are the peace campaigns arguing against an invasion? The urges to use diplomatic methods and to win over the Taiwanese public for a peaceful 'reunification' if that's what they want?

> China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce?

Through both espionage[0][1][2] and economic and political coercion.[3][4][5]

>Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...?

Do you think Chinese officials or whistleblowers involved in those programmes are going to speak to American or Taiwanese media? Seriously? These leak in democratic countries because there is a domestic free press that people can speak to. Russian and Chinese officials are not going to pick up the phone to the New York Times or the Washington Post...

>I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity).

The US and other Western countries condemned the coup and instituted sanctions against the military officers involved. What more do you want them to have done, invade?

>"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking?

This is not an American concept, it's a global one created in the aftermath of WW2's immense destruction, aiming to encourage countries to resolve disputes peacefully though diplomacy and the use of international institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. And that violent interventions should follow international law and be channeled through the United Nations Security Council where the immediate principle of self defence doesn't apply. The United Nations Secretary-General often refers to the term and concept.[6][7]

The US broadly follows it, though as I've said before I regard the invasion of Iraq as being contrary to it and a black mark on the US's history and credibility. I'd say that secret CIA 'black sites' and extraordinary rendition fall in the same category and are rightly condemned. China is not following it in many cases, including Tibet, its encroachment on Bhutan, its threats and promises to invade Taiwan, and its takeover of the South China Sea. It's following a traditional 19th century view of 'might makes right' and annexation by force.

Once again, this is not a 'US good, China bad' debate as you seem so eager to turn it into. We can and should condemn any country that acts this way, whoever it might be.

[0]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espio...

[2]https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.03...

[3]https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coer...

[4]https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-c...

[5]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significanc...

[6]https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-...

[7]https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12062.doc.htm