From Hillary Clinton today:
The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.
Oh, if only we could return to the halcyon days of the Clinton administration, when Beijing knew it had a president in the White House it couldn't push around. In those days, we'd get newspaper stories like this commentary from 1997:
Satellite photos now reveal that a state-owned Chinese company deliberately deceived Washington officials in 1994 when it claimed it was importing American machine tools for civilian purposes. Instead, it diverted them illegally to a missile factory.This should come as no surprise. The Clinton Administration's penchant for putting trade above national security has convinced China that even the greatest outrages will go unpunished.
The report, whose existence has been secret, prompted a criminal investigation of the companies, which officials said was undermined this year when Mr. Clinton approved Loral's export to China of the same information about guidance systems. Loral's chairman was the largest personal donor to the Democratic Party last year.An examination of the Administration's handling of the case, based on interviews with Administration officials and industry executives, illustrates the competing forces that buffet Mr. Clinton on China policy. In this instance, the President's desire to limit the spread of missile technology was balanced against the commercial interests of powerful American businesses, many of which were White House allies and substantial supporters of the Democratic Party.
''From the Chinese point of view, this was the key case study on how the Administration would operate on contentious issues,'' an Administration expert on China said. The message, the official added, was that Administration policy on issues like the spread of weapons and human rights abuses ''could be reversed by corporations.''
Or -- and this is choice -- this 1994 dispatch on a Human Rights Watch report:
Human Rights Watch, which this year expanded its organization to new bases in Europe and Central Asia, and also opened an office to scrutinize the United Nations, is sharp in its criticism of the Clinton Administration, specifically Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.Under Mr. Brown, the report said, American delegations have been "hawking trade and investment deals while relegating human rights to the ineffectual realm of private diplomacy."
"The Administration's position on India exemplified the shift," Human Rights Watch said. "Its refreshing but short-lived public criticism of Indian abuses in Kashmir was replaced by the eager promotion of an 'emerging market' where public discussion of human rights was taboo."
Does Hillary Clinton fault her husband for being too soft on human rights in his dealings with China and other nations? If not, why have the Bush administration's policies been worse than the Clinton administration's? Somebody should ask her. I generally agree with her about boycotting the opening ceremonies, but she has absolutely no grounds on which to criticize the Bush Administration.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod, great service you have provided in bringing us back to the sordid record of US-China relations in the 1990s, when America took "its holiday from history." The Loral company sale of weapons technology to the Beijing regime -- at the same time Clinton and Co. were receiving campaign funds from Loral's founder AND from PRC-linked "operators" residing in this country -- is one of the greatest untold crimes (and perhaps genuinely treasonous acts) of that decade.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was former Georgia Republican Conressman Bob Barr who had pushed for Clinton's impeachment on precisely this treacherous if not treasonous exchange (Loral gives weapons tech. to PRC while giving campaign cash to Clinton, who also received cash from PRC-linked US-based "operators"). Barr had argued wistfully that Clinton's perjury on his Lewinsky testimony totally blind-sided the public and distracted us all from the real crime (and impeachable offense) committed here by Clinton and Co. Our attention was diverted to the titillating details of Clinton's Oval Office sexcapades while the real crime was largely ignored.
At the same time, I also agree with your approval -- stated in your final paragraph -- of HRC's call to boycott the opening ceremonies. It's the least we can do. The 2008 Olympics will represent the first time in 72 years that a totalitarian regime is given the "honor" and prestige of hosting the Games. The last time, 72 years ago, the honor went to Nazi Germany.
I don't check too many of the other blogs on beliefnet.com but I am surprised that there is not more "buzz" about the events in Tibet (where the issue of religious freedom is central) and the question of US complicity/support for the Beijing regime hosting these games. I am grateful to you for at least bringing this up. It's worthy of much, much more discussion, especially from the angle of religious freedom -- not only for Tibetan Buddhists but for the underground Christian churches and even for the neo-gnostic Falun Gong.
Oops, in my previous post, in stating that the Beijing 2008 Games were the first Summer Games to be hosted by a totalitarian regime in 72 years, I completely forget about the 1980 Games hosted by the USSR. Oh well :-)
But we made the right decision in boycotting the Moscow games :-)
Rule of Thumb: All demands for unspecified or purely symbolic actions by the U.S. to "do something" about Tibet or Darfur are mere moral posturing. C-R-O-C-K.
"Octopus" wrote: "But we made the right decision in boycotting the Moscow games :-)"
Interesting comment/question by "Octopus." As you know, President Jimmy Carter made the decision that the U.S. would boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. Many of the U.S. athletes were understandably upset. Other athletes understood the reasons and supported the boycott. No U.S. athletes, if I understand it, participated in the Summer Games that year.
Later in that decade the "Evil Empire" (as Carter's successor famously described it) crumbled.
President Carter and those athletes who missed the chance to earn Olympic gold in 1980 can go to their graves with the satisfaction of knowing that their largely symbolic action may have contributed to the liberation of hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and the former USSR.
For the same reason we should deny the prison state headquartered in Beijing the opportunity to stage a massive photo opportunity (i.e., the Summer Games) beginning on August 8th. For the sake of the underground Christian churches and all the other good people wasting away and suffering in all the dark places in that awful regime.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.