by Taylor Marsh
Secretary Clinton's first overseas tour has gotten a lot of attention and deservedly so. In catching up with Clinton, because of being on the road moving from west coast to east (now reporting from Washington, D.C.), one of my favorite moments was when Clinton made a refueling stop that took some in the traveling press by surprise.
We made a standard refueling stop here, between Beijing and Alaska, but to the reporters' surprise, hundreds of military personnel and their families had gathered here for a campaign-style event in one of the airport hangers. No one on the secretary's team had told us this was planned.
[...] The message on the 20,000-mile trip, Clinton said, is "that United States is ready and eager to lead. We can't solve all the problems ourselves. But the world can't solve their problems without us." Then Clinton plunged into crowd, shaking hands and posing for pictures. She had transformed a standard refueling stop into another opportunity for the selling of the Obama administration's foreign policy.In China, Clinton made it clear that our two nations are inextricably linked: "Our economies are so intertwined... The Chinese know that in order to start exporting again to its biggest market . . . the United States has to take some drastic measures with the stimulus package. We have to incur more debt. The Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. "We are truly going to rise or fall together. ..."
Subtle hint that reminds everyone America's pocketbooks rev China's engines.
But not everyone is happy about Clinton's candor or her efforts to undo the Bush-Cheney double standard when it comes to reality, human rights and telling it like it is. You know, instead of talking in vapid streams of political gibberish that amount to a campaign with no intent to back it up, because "war on terror" policies make a mockery of diplomatic efforts. Of course I'm talking about the criticism coming Clinton's way from human rights activists and others who have taken exception to her statements focusing on economic realities, instead of China's appalling history of subverting human rights:
"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." - Secretary Clinton
Amnesty International USA quickly reacted, saying they are "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks.
"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," he said.
"But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China," he said.Students for a Free Tibet said Clinton's remarks sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time.
"The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda," said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group.
This is just stupid and easy to say when you only have to think about one thing in a vacuum of reality.
As for Clinton's dialogue, think Nixon going to China. Only he could do it back when. Only Clinton could do it and talk economics in the face of what we all know to be true.
First lady Hillary Clinton put herself on the map in China back in the 1990s in a speech that has become famous, the foundation of her foreign policy philosophy on human rights. Secretary Clinton certainly doesn't need nor deserve a lecture from the activist peanut gallery on China's human rights or her commitment to calling them on it when the time is right.
But Clinton's candor is drawing "mixed reviews," according to the Post, though Craig Nelson's comment not surprisingly is the one that nails the issue squarely.
"I think she clearly feels it's necessary to induce realism and perspective to expectations and performance, and to tell the Chinese that Obama knows that we all need to work together, so she is determined not to let less centrally vital issues handicap that," said Chris Nelson, who writes an influential newsletter on Asian policy.
That Clinton would state she knows what Beijing would say when approached about human rights in that country or in dealing with Tibet, especially as we come upon the 50th anniversary of the Tibet uprising, is realistic talk from a person who knows what she's talking about.
"I think that to worry about something which is so self-evident is an impediment to clear thinking," Clinton told reporters traveling with her. "And I don't think it should be viewed as particularly extraordinary that someone in my position would say what's obvious."
No one, certainly not Secretary Clinton, is ignoring the human rights reality in China, a subject on which she's made herself clear.
Anyone refusing to juxtapose our economic entanglements with China as being anything but central today misses that unless President Obama sets a firm foundation from the start with China, doing anything on human rights will be impossible.
Righteous activism oblivious to economic survival is rendered toothless, revealing myopia from having only one thing on your plate at a time.
President Obama's Secretary of State has no such luxury.
The Dalai Lama, himself, approaches the Chinese government in a similar way. He has never spoken ill of the Chinese government or the people of China, despite their oppressive treatment of his people. He might know more about how to handle the Chinese than most Americans. The best way for America to support human rights in China is to be an example of wisdom and compassion, just like the Dalai Lama is to the world. That is our best hope.
Important to know they have one agenda to push but this country has a chess board of strategic moves that must be considered. Amnesty International is a wonderful organization and has a particular place in keeping us all aware of what is going on. That they would want all things to stop until their points are acceepted is unrealistic. Triage in the world is as important as in the emergency room.
"Secretary Clinton certainly doesn't need nor deserve a lecture from the activist peanut gallery on China's human rights or her commitment to calling them on it when the time is right."
"Righteous activism oblivious to economic survival is rendered toothless, revealing myopia from having only one thing on your plate at a time."
"This is just stupid and easy to say when you only have to think about one thing in a vacuum of reality.
"You know, instead of talking in vapid streams of political gibberish that amount to a campaign with no intent to back it up, because "war on terror" policies make a mockery of diplomatic efforts. Of course I'm talking about the criticism coming Clinton's way from human rights activists and others who have taken exception to her...."
Careful Obama, we will not continue to support you if you do not support the basic principles of America.
It's sad how misguided America has become. It elected a straw man, a stuffed shirt as President. And people actually support Hillary Clinton and think she has standards? What a disgrace this administration is.
The USA's is 224 years old, and presently in a meltdown. The Chinese is the largest treasury bond holder, and had been financing our spent-spent-shop-till-you-drop-keeping-up-with-the-Jones materialistic binge. The once sleeping giant is awaken. No amount of bullying will make them shake their knees.
Contrary to what the Liberals tout, HRC was in China to assure the Chinese that we are good creditors, and their huge investments are safe. The Chinese retorts: we thought so, until the meltdown. HRC is there to ask more LOANS. IMAGINE THAT !
If anyone believes China will go down on its knees to please our country, they are sorely mistaken. You can't bully the Chinese. It's best to take a diplomatic approach, because just like us, THEY WANT TO LIVE THEIR LIVES WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM ANY OUTSIDE FORCE.
US challenging China on human rights, when we promote RENDITION, nor elbow China to cut on their emission when we are the no 1 culprit.
1.5 billion Chinese with culture and empires dating back 221 BC vs. America's 315 million spent-spent-shop-till-you-drop-keeping-up-with-the-jones, 224 years old, and financially broke ! ! ! !
How preposterous !
That's what the WTO should be about, it shouldn't be a mouthpiece for the multinationals. Free and Fair trade.
"Lecture China on human rights? The USA, “incarceration nation”, holds no high moral ground." at
http://yourbrainonbliss.com reprinted below,
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in China, human rights groups are upset that she is not taking China to task for human rights violations. But if freedom from being unnecessarily caged is a human right, then the USA holds no high moral ground to be lecturing any country. For the USA imprisons its citizens at an astoundingly high rate, far higher than any other government on earth. Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project outlined in 2006 how the USA is the “Incarceration Nation.”
The USA incarcerates 2.3 million prisoners at a (2006) rate of 738 per 100,000. For China, the rate is 118 prisoners per 100,000 people less than one sixth the rate in “the land of the free.” No other country comes close to the American rate of incarceration. Turkmenistan comes in at 489, Cuba 487. Over 61% of countries imprisoned at a rate of less than 150 per 100,000 roughly 1/5th the rate in the USA. For more detail see the King’s College of London World Prison Population List (7th ed.) by Roy Walmsley.
Even though China’s is home ...
see the rest at http://yourbrainonbliss.com
I swear all the outrage over this Clinton statement is just plain old Clinton bashing. If it would have been said by Madline Albright almost no one would have cared.
The true problem of dealing with human rights in China is that you are asking an authoritarian government to lessen it's grasp over it's people. A move which cold jepordize the hold on power the party has. Added to the power problem is that China doesn't have a history of liberalism (classicaly defined), but rather one of strong central government. Introducing politicaly liberal ideas into a populace that isn't ready for them could be dangerous. The danger being a more aggressive authoritarian regieme taking advantage and coming to power based on any populace backlash that might occur (see USSR and Russia). I would like to see a free Tibet and democracy in China, but then again I'm an American, it's what I was raised to believe in. The first lesson in learning about the world (and not just Europe) is that not everyone looks to (or even trusts) Western culture. An old phrase comes to mind: "The devil I know beats the devil I don't."
Taylor, in case you have forgotten because you seem to think Hillary, wife of serial sexual polygamist and liar Bill, is the next best thing to sliced bread, Hillary is a politician. Politicians lie and spin and do whatever they have to to achieve their goal. So don't criticize people for doing to Hillary when you were so angry about people not doing it to Bush! Hillary didn't have the balls to stand up to her philandering husband. How is she going to stand up to China?
Hillary didn't say squat about human rights because China owns our ass. Her husband and Al Gore for that matter opened that gate and it sucked all of the jobs from the Heartland. Their pie-in-the-sky promises of China trade their wealthy donors begged them to set up never came to fruition. It only exported slavery and put a good chunk of us out of work. I bet Al Gore is kicking himself because China has become the second biggest polluter and second biggest source of CO2 on the planet behind the US.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for Hillary hearing what she needs to hear on human rights. I hope environmental activists take her on for not pushing for stricter environmental standards in China as well. You don't think Democrats need a push in the right direction by the little people? That they're above it?
Are we supposed to ignore human rights crimes and abuses and the deaths they produce because some politician is stuck in a rock and a hard place? Absolutely not. No politician of any party is going to do what's right without pressure. And there is no perfect time to apply it, it has to be constant or nothing will change.
As for the idea that a SOS Obama would be able to issue the same comments, that's just laughable. Mostly because Obama doesn't have a record of being critical of China's human rights violations.
Clinton was just saying out loud what we all know, that you can yell at someone all you want about changing their behavior, but it won't do any good if they just don't want to change.
Of course the really funny part of this whole thing is the Amnesty quote: "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues". We all know that China will bring up slavery and our treatment of Native Americans to show that we don't have much to stand on.