Hillary Clinton has royally pissed off human rights groups. I hate to say it, but she really has. On Friday she told reporters that issues like religious freedom and human rights “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and security crises. We have to have a dialogue that leads to an understanding and cooperation on each of those.” While this does subordinate their interests to other issues, these groups need to stay quiet on this one. Hillary is right here.
Secretary Clinton’s comments prompted Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, to say:
“Secretary Clinton’s remarks point to a diplomatic strategy that has worked well for the Chinese government – segregating human rights issues into a dead-end ‘dialogue of the deaf.’ A new approach is needed, one in which the US engages China on the critical importance of human rights to a wide range of mutual security interests.”
Before I get to my response to these statements, I will add this response from Secretary Clinton:
“We know we are going to press them to reconsider their position about Tibetan religious and cultural freedom and autonomy for the Tibetans, and some kind of recognition or acknowledgment of the Dalai Lama. I have had those conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders, and we know what they are going to say about Taiwan and military sales.”
I have to throw in my lot with Secretary Clinton on this one. Conversations between the United States and China on human rights have been going on for a long time, with little effect. Often, it seems that we have only angered China by preaching about human rights.
Also, the question of how to get China to improve its human rights practices tends to ignore other issues on which we are far more likely to get strong cooperation. A great example of this is the Six Party Talks. China is an excellent partner in these negotiatons, carrying a lot of weight to make that process move along. Neither China nor the United States want North Korea to have nuclear weapons, or to sell nuclear weapons if they keep what they have, leaving the two countries as natural allies on that issue. There are plenty of other issues, economic, security, and even some aspects of climate change, that provide many promising opportunities for cooperation.
It is great to see Hillary Clinton take this stance towards China. It keeps political realities in mind, while still looking for as many ways as possible for China and the United States to cooperate. Her stance is not pretty, but it is exactly what is called for. Groups like Human Rights Watch are indeed doing valuable work to call our attention to where human rights are not being emphasized, but they have a narrow focus when they look at policy. The Secretary of State has to look at the complete picture, and Hillary Clinton is doing exactly that.
I must say I disagree. If we don’t stand up for principles when times are difficult, when do we stand up for them? Furthermore if we don’t link questions of human rights to economic issues, we have no leverage on countries like China. Our preaching doesn’t do any good.
I also wonder whether this was a calculated statement of policy from the Obama administration or a gaffe from an SOS who has no foriegn policy experience. It will be intersting to see.
I have to say I agree with Justin and disagree vehemently with Zack. I think the two over-arching problem with Human Rights groups approach and opinions towards China is that it is blatantly ethnocentric and completely ignores the realpolitik of the situation.
What I have gleamed from many rights groups is that they don’t understand Chinese history or society in any deep manner. They want the Chinese to grant the Civil and Human rights that we theoretically have in the West without regard for the fact that these have never officially been present in Chinese Law or Society. The western concept of “Human Rights” is alien in China.
If we attempt to force it on them we do nothing but shoot ourselves in the foot during the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Our government should be that stupid? Trying to link the Economy and Human Rights in China is perhaps the most ridiculously unproductive idea I have ever heard: they buy our debt, they make many of our goods, they buy a good portion of our goods, and much more. We are so interconnected at this point that to harm China is to harm the United states
Should the Chinese population be granted more basic rights? Of course, this point is plain but the question that statement raises is much more difficult: Does the West have the moral authority and right to attempt to force a sovereign country, from a very different culture, to accept our societies hypocritical definition of “Human Rights?” The answer the Chinese Government will give you is “No,” and if people bothered to look at their culture they would understand that “No.” “Human Rights” in China can happen but it will take time, and much more importantly it will be a internal process.
There is no practical way to force Chinese society to accept our definition of what their “Rights” should be. To attempt to do so is ethnocentric. It completely ignores the historical and present reality and is plain foolhardy. Before any person or organization defames China as evil perhaps they should more closely examine their own ideas, the conceptualization of “Human Rights” itself, and the cultures, laws, and history of China. Do this and you will find that “Human Rights” is a much more troublesome and complicated issue than most of us would like to admit. Even more so in regards to China.