To review: Dr. Blanchard draws attention to "China's brutal occupation and colonization of Tibet," as demonstrated by China's murderous crackdown on Tibetan dissidents this week. He then commits an odd logical stretch of Madvillian proportions, accusing the international left of spending more time criticizing Israel over Palestine than holding China accountable for its oppression of Tibet.
...it'd perhaps be more accurate that no one really pays attention to Tibet, at least not enough to do anything about it. I take Ken's point to be that the usual liberal internationalist organs of peace, namely the United Nations, are too busy doing other things (such as denouncing Israel) to pay attention to real injustice [Jon Schaff, "Moral Blindness on Cuba," South Dakota Politics, 2008.03.20].
The Chinese Communist government is a bunch of thugs. They proved that to me in 1989 in Tiananmen Square. I spent the spring of my senior year in high school watching the amazing crowds of young people, showing they had the courage to stand up to a dictatorship, to fight for their right to speak and vote, and to do it without violence. Those young patriots didn't raise guns or clubs: they raised a replica of the Statue of Liberty to face down Deng and Mao in the heart of the Communist capital.And then the Chinese army marched in and killed them, thousands of them. The Chinese Communist government jailed thousands more.
I can still feel how my heart sank that June morning when I listened to the news from Beijing. My teeth still clench when I think of the Chinese government's willingness to murder its best and brightest, its own children, just to hold on to power. Arguments about stability and collective good be damned -- killing people who demand human rights is an atrocity that no nation should tolerate.
And yet we do. My own house probably has the same proportion of cheap plastic junk (and appliances, and who knows what else) and yours does. America bought $321 billion worth of goods from China last year. That's a bit over a quarter of everything China exported last year, and $256 billion more than we sold to them. We're addicted to China's cheap labor and goods... and they're addicted to our purchasing power.
That's why we invade places like Afghanistan and Iraq, embargo places like Cuba, yet embrace China and its president, Hu Jintao, as an important ally.
"Embrace"? Where have I heard that word? Here's what the President said at his Feb. 28 press conference in response to a question about talking to Raul Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
Well, talking to him is embracing. Excuse me. Let me use another word -- you're right, "embrace" is like big hug, right? You're looking -- I do embrace people. Mike, one of these days, I'm just thinking about -- (laughter.) Right, okay, good, thank you for reminding me to use a different word. Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States.
Now, somebody would say, well, I'm going to tell him to release the prisoners. Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace and these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them to respond. And so I made a decision quite the opposite, and that is to keep saying to the Cuban people, we stand with you; we will not sit down with your leaders that imprison your people because of what they believe; we will keep an embargo on you; we do want you to have money from people here in the homeland, but we will stay insistent upon this policy until you begin to get free.
And so that's the way I've conducted foreign policy, and will continue to conduct foreign policy. I just remind people that the decisions of the U.S. President to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive. It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake -- on the two countries you talked about [President George W. Bush, press conference, official transcript, WhiteHouse.gov, 2008.02.28].
Good thing he added that last line. Otherwise, President Bush would have had more 'splainin' to do about his frequent "embraces" with President Hu. Consider this statement from Bush to Hu at their November 2006 Hanoi meeting:
...you and I have had a lot of meetings. And the reason why is because we recognize that working together we can accomplish a lot for the security of the world and for the prosperity of our people. China is a very important nation, and the United States believes strongly that by working together, we can help solve problems, such as North Korea and Iran.
Our bilateral relations are very good, and we -- you and I are committed to keeping them that way. Obviously, with as much commerce between our countries as there is, there's going to be trade difficulties, but nevertheless, we both adopt a spirit of mutual respect and the desire to work through our problems for the common good of our peoples.I strongly support your vision, Mr. President, of encouraging your country to become a nation of consumers and not savers, which will inure to the benefit of our manufacturers, both large and small, and our farmers, as well.
I always enjoy our frank and friendly discussions, and I'm looking forward to this one, as well. And I thank you for your hospitality [President George W. Bush, remarks to Chinese President Hu Jintao, official press release, WhiteHouse.gov, 2006.11.19].
China continues to commit the crimes for which President Bush rightly blasts the Castro regime. Yet President Bush will sit down and have his picture taken with the tyrants of China. Neither President McCain, President Clinton, nor President Obama is likely to change that policy... because they aren't willing ask us and none of us appear willing to make that economic sacrifice.
Blaming the "liberal internationalist organs of peace" (a Sibbyesque-sounding scapegoat if ever I heard one) for China's crimes against humanity barks way up the wrong tree. It's the rank-and-file internationalist organs of consumerism -- i.e., you, me, and all our fellow shoppers -- who are supporting the Chinese government and its oppression of Tibet and its own people.
By the way, did you catch that line from President Bush about encouraging China "to become a nation of consumers and not savers"? Consumerism über alles....
p.s.: And not that a policy of never talking to dictators is the right way to go: the Dalai Lama himself, who knows more about oppression than any of us, is willing to talk with his oppressors in the Chinese government.
-----
*update 12:25: I miscredited the Dakota Women China post to Anna. The author was actually Kelsey; see comments below. My apologies to all for the confusion!
Not to be territorial, but that's my post, not Anna's. Group blog, you know:)
ReplyDeleteHello, Kelsey! My apologies -- I'm so used to Anna taking Ken to the woodshed, her name was just stuck in my head. I'll asterisk and update above. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWe slam on Bush for being so friendly to China. But the fact of the matter is that every president has been buddy-buddy with the Chinese since Nixon visited Beijing in 1972. So Dubya is just continuing an "American Tradition!"
ReplyDeleteAnd the worst part, China has so many chits on us that if they ever decided to cash in, we'd be in very big trouble.
Add the fact that we pretty much flipped the bird to Taiwain (kicking them off the UN Security Council and recogninzing Communist China over the nearly 60-year old government in exile) says a lot about what our priorities are in Southeast Asia.
Had the opportunity to spend a week with the senate leaders from America touring and studying in the Beijing area, and the impressions of the changes their country is seeing were inescapable. The Chinese government, in relation to it's economy, is described as an old man riding on the back of a tiger. I think those that characterize the government as in control, misappreciate the uneasy nature of the relationship. Our open trade policy has clearly improved the conditions of the living, breathing average folks in China, and at the same time created a force for openness that has not been a part of China's experience in the past. This is not an endorsement of where they are at, but a recognition that the condition there has improved. We went to mass in Beijing, and I understand that when you do - you don't know if your priest is sanctioned by our faith (Roman Catholic)as they have to create that relationship secretly, as all are chosen by the government. Try to find a Rotary meeting in Beijing and you'll see the paranoia that China has towards outside international groups - even one so non-paramilitary as Rotary! Interestingly, in China they complain about jobs being lost to cheap labor in Vietnam! The world is a lot more complex than some would want to view it. Without a doubt, millions of human beings lead a better life due to the trade opportunities with America, but there is obviously much more to do.
ReplyDeletePS I do not think you are accurate when you say thousands were killed at the Tiananmen Square demonstration, but what is under-reported is that on the same day there were hundreds of protests across China - not just the students from Beijing University that marched to the gates of the Forbidden City. As a tourist, I also found it odd - although I shouldn't have been suprised - that there is no marking or memorial to recognize where the tank ran over the student in that famous picture - you have to kind of estimate it in relationship to the governmnt building in the background when you take a picture of the spot (it is right in front of Mao's picture on the red wall at the entrance to the Forbidden City)
--Lee Schoenbeck
So if things would be worse in China without our open trade policy, whhy haven't we adopted the same approach to Cuba? I would think the freedom-spreading power of open trade would operate even more quickly in a smaller nation with closer ties to Western and US culture like Cuba.
ReplyDelete