Washington has finally learned the value of pragmatism... at least when it comes to dealing with China. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to avoid needlessly insulting Beijing by harping on human rights reflects a real maturation in our China policy. Instead of aggravating our largest creditor, American politicians have come to grips with the fact ideological debates are best kept at home. The Chinese came to this realization about 10 years ago -- one has to wonder what took us so long to learn the same lesson.
Pelosi's official silence on the human rights issue comes three months after Hillary Clinton set a precedent conservative ideologues are still bemoaning. Rather than confront Beijing with the usual litany of human rights complaints during her February 2009 trip to China, the new Secretary of State chose to focus on the global economic crisis, climate change and regional/international security threats. Clinton's comment on this new approach is telling, "We have to continue to press them" on human rights. "But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis."
In remarking on this relatively abrupt change in Washington's "normal" approach to Beijing, a Washington Post reporter opined, "Clinton's willingness to break a diplomatic taboo -- generally U.S. officials will claim to seek progress on human rights, even if they may not mean it -- appears to be part of a determined effort by the new administration to clear the linguistic fog of international diplomacy."
Other pundits were not as kind. In an editorial titled "Not So Obvious," the Washington Post declared, "Ms. Clinton's statement will have an effect: It will demoralize thousands of democracy advocates in China, and it will cause many others around the world to wonder about the character of the new U.S. administration." Anne Applebaum, a syndicated columnist was even more scathing. "A cozy relationship with China's current rulers won't guarantee everlasting Asian stability... President Obama was right, in his inaugural address, when he told 'those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent' that they should know they are 'on the wrong side of history.' Now, he and his secretary of state need to enact practical policies to drive home that rhetorical lesson."
And, the Wall Street Journal offered this comment, "At best, Mrs. Clinton's comment is a serious rookie mistake. At worst, it's a slap to dissidents in China, including at least 12 who were placed under house arrest during her visit."
I provide this response to Clinton's remarks as an indication of the degree to which Cold War perspectives continue to frame Washington's foreign policy dialogue. (Think I'm kidding? In her column on Clinton's trip Applebaum argues, "Grandiloquent human rights speeches... have been a hallmark of American foreign policy since at least 1956, when we didn't come to the aid of Hungarians taking part in a rebellion we helped incite.")
What's important to understand here is that Washington's periodic focus on human rights is globally perceived as a poor veil for broader criticism of a competing political system -- one whose values do not explicitly mirror our own. That said, occasionally someone slips and comes close to blatantly stating this is the case. For instance, in the Wall Street Journal editorial on Clinton's remarks we find the following comment: "Beijing's bad rights record already interferes with U.S.-China ties. The same nontransparent judicial system that jails dissidents can hurt U.S. businesses and businessmen." In other words, for some self-declared proponents of liberal democracy and free markets we're not just concerned about human rights; we believe the Chinese may be a fundamental threat to our way of life.
This jingoistic poppycock needs to stop. While the Chinese regime certainly suffers human rights shortfalls -- the Bush administration effectively ended our ability to assume a self-righteous position on this front. And former vice president Cheney's recent campaign to defend this record is doing nothing to improve the situation.
In fact, while American politicians are engaged in a bizarre debate over the utility and necessity of ignoring or violating our laws so as to protect national security, the Chinese are quietly seeking to correct their own problems. In April 2009, Chinese authorities released the government's first-ever working plan on human rights protection. Titled the National Human Rights Action Plan of China, the document pledges progress on a wide array of economic, political and social issues.
Beijing's economic promises include a right to work, right to basic living conditions, and a right to education. Political concerns covered in the document include rights of the person -- a prohibition on extortion of confessions by torture -- right to a fair trial, and right to oversee state implementation of laws and regulations. Social rights to be addressed include women's rights, senior citizen rights, and the rights of the disabled.
I realize it's tempting to dismiss this document as little more than propaganda, but the very fact Beijing felt it was necessary to publish such a statement speaks volumes about where the Chinese leadership believes they should head. This candor is even evident in the human rights plan. In the document's introduction Beijing admits "China has a long road ahead in its efforts to improve its human rights situation." The Republican Party Cheney claims to represent has yet to be so forthcoming.
In sum, we should welcome the pragmatism evident in Secretary of State Clinton and House Speaker Pelosi's decision to abandon useless diatribes about China's human rights record. Washington's employment of this Cold War rhetoric certainly did not work in the past -- and is even more unlikely to be fruitful in the future. Instead we should privately praise the Chinese leadership for its efforts on this front and then turn to the real issues at hand... fostering a close working relationship with Asia's most important government.