Secretary Clinton replied by saying:
Now, that doesn't mean that questions of Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the whole range of challenges that we often engage on with the Chinese, are not part of the agenda. But we pretty much know what they are going to say. We have to continue to press them but our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises. We have to have a dialog that leads to an understanding and cooperation on each of those.[SOURCE]
Allow me to translate: If we don't have a world to live in, human rights won't exactly matter, now will they?
The Chinese have long held the attitude that human rights issues are an internal matter, private to the Chinese government, and have harshly rebuked the US and other countries over and over again when outside powers have tried to intervene. To try to even imply that Hillary Clinton does not care about human rights is bizarrely off the mark; I believe what Clinton is getting at is this: Let's get more deeply engaged with China, approach them on approachable topics, and rebuild a strong partnership based on common goals. Then we can start pushing them on other issues.
The idea that the US would bully its way into China, dump a list of demands on them, and then, as Amnesty International seems to imply, cement an adversarial relationship with threats of military and economic retaliation if the Chinese government does not immediately capitulate is.... well, pretty Bush-esque mentality. Amnesty International claims correctly that, "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues." And while this is true, what did they really think was going to happen? Since Barack Obama won the American presidency on promises of increased diplomacy, enhanced friendly relations worldwide, and role-model worthy behavior on the global stage, that the Secretary of State was going to just waltz into Beijing and say, "OK, now we got rid of George Bush [who the Chinese government liked] you're going to do it our way."
News flash: Barack Obama is the President of the United States, not China, and we still have to conduct diplomacy, not just expect instant compliance with western values. The snarky I won! attitude that Democrats are projecting all over Washington D.C. is not going to get us anywhere with regressive totalitarian governments like China. Do we want the door slammed in our face because we come trampling all over their internal business with big, flashy, overbearing diplomats and conceited surety of getting our way? Or would we maybe, just maybe, like to get our foot in the door by acting in a friendly and cooperative manner?
Clinton's seemingly off-hand remark, "But we pretty much know what they are going to say," also pretty much sums it up: If we come in guns blazing over human rights, we're going to get turned away. If we engage China as a meaningful partner on a multi-layered global policy drive, bring them to the table as a large, rich and potent country (like they are,) then we can start working on the agenda items that they have been intractable on, once they trust us a little more. Wasn't rebuilding trust and respect for America and its image as a forward-thinking, progressive nation one of the key platform items of the new administration? How come we have to latch onto this human rights thing as the sole litmus test for our foreign relations? Does anyone really think President Obama and Secretary Clinton don't care about human right? Come on. As impatient as I am to see substantive delivery on Obama's big promises, it isn't all going to happen at once, like magic just because there's a new President (in the United States, not the world.)
At the same time as Secretary Clinton is being ripped to shreds by human rights groups (something that must have her doing a tailspin, considering her general record,) she is being praised by the New York Times, Reuters, and The LA Times for her fresh, redefined style of diplomacy. Meeting with women at an all-women's college, walking among crowds in Indonesia, and addressing huge crowds on everything from North Korea to personal matters. Secretary Clinton ended her week-long Asian tour by attending a church service Sunday morning; although it was a state-sanctioned church, the Chinese government remains extremely suspicious of these groups, and for a high powered US diplomat to attend such a service makes more of a statement than most Westerners can really understand. Clinton is being lauded for her candor and for her approachability, something everyday people outside the United States are not accustomed to from government ministers. Her tour of Asia has the slightest flavor from her presidential campaign: "listening tours" and town hall style meetings, direct introductions to citizens, and a willingness to show her personality that former Secretaries, particularly under Bush, never allowed. Secretary Clinton even managed to draw out Japan's infamously reclusive Empress Michiko, who seldom if ever receives foreign diplomats.
Even the fact that Clinton chose to break with tradition and head to Asia for her first overseas diplomatic tour, instead of making a largely vanity-driven tour of premier European countries, suggests that she and the whole Administration, have their priorities in the right place. Appropriate experts have been deployed to the Middle East, freeing the Secretary of State to take on larger goals, such as (as I have already said,) China's hegemony over Asia, and their regressive social and environmental policies. The Bush administration chose to keep Chinese diplomacy sequestered largely in the trade arena, allowed Treasury to conduct most matters with the Chinese government, and totally ignored the larger picture of engaging China as a global partner; this was likely in part because of pressure from Japan to maintain the strongest Asian ties with Tokyo. Secretary Clinton smoothly addressed this concern on her trip, and quickly moved on to the more pressing matter of coalition building with the rest of the Asian map.
Human rights groups should not be wringing their hands. They should be praising Clinton and President Obama for making the necessary steps to get more leverage with China. It eludes me how an organization like Amnesty International could actually be calling for more cowboy diplomacy; make demands early and loud, and "stand up to" them when (we know) they will say, "It's none of your business."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment