Obama Approach to Diplomacy Faces Test in China
New York Times
by on May 1, 2012 WASHINGTON — When Hillary Rodham Clinton made her first trip to China in 2009, barely a month into her tenure as secretary of state, she said that American concerns about human rights should not interfere with other pressing global issues on which the United States and China could find common ground. Human rights advocates were appalled, and under orders from the White House, Mrs. Clinton softened her remarks the next day.
But her candid admission reflected the cold calculation that continues to shape President Obama's foreign policy when it comes to championing rights and freedoms abroad. Quiet diplomacy and compromise, administration officials argue, are sometimes more effective, if less satisfying morally, than thunderous public condemnation.
The administration's strategy, already under fire from critics on the left and the right, now faces its most public test as Mrs. Clinton arrives again in Beijing for talks that are certain to receive far less attention than the uncertain fate of a Chinese lawyer, Chen Guangcheng, who escaped a brutalizing, illegal house arrest and has sought protection from American diplomats in the Chinese capital.
"This is a remarkable and possibly unprecedented opportunity for the United States to express sympathy and support for someone who is a folk hero now in China," said Sophie Richardson, the China director for Human Rights Watch.
She noted the administration's refrain, repeated Monday by Mr. Obama, that the United States welcomed China's growing prosperity and global influence, and added, "This is the moment to stand up and say we welcome the rise of China and the work of people like Chen Guangcheng."
Administration officials have so far opted for a different approach, refusing even to acknowledge Mr. Chen's case or the fact that he appears to be in the protective safety of American diplomats, though Mrs. Clinton has raised his mistreatment in the past. That has renewed criticism that the White House has soft-pedaled the question of human rights when it comes to China or other repressive countries whenever expedience dictates it.
Mr. Obama's aides dispute that, pointing to numerous statements by the president and Mrs. Clinton and, most recently, to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s toast at a State Department luncheon in February with China's vice president and presumed leader-to-be, Xi Jinping.
"We have been clear about our concern over the areas in which from our perspective conditions in China have deteriorated and about the plight of several very prominent individuals," Mr. Biden said as a chill permeated an otherwise sociable event.
For Mr. Obama, though, it is a question of tone and emphasis. Every president, to some degree, has championed human rights around the world. For the last 35 years the United States has produced an annual report on individual nations that have adhered to basic freedoms; the 36th is to be released this month. And yet each president during that time has also been reproached for ignoring abuses committed by countries whose security or economic importance mattered more to American national interest.
Ronald Reagan promoted political freedom behind the Iron Curtain but did so far less vigorously in Latin America. (He also negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union, whose abuses he denounced relentlessly.)
George W. Bush advocated a "Freedom Agenda" but faced the same accusations as Mr. Obama when it came to pushing Egypt, Russia or China — and endured accusations of hypocrisy for America's own actions in Iraq and on Guantánamo. No president has ever really taken Saudi Arabia to task as one of the world's most repressive societies, where religions other than Islam are banned, women cannot drive and no one can vote.
A senior official argued that the Obama administration had advanced the argument beyond the bully pulpit by, for example, rejoining the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, once derided as a den of hypocrisy because some of the worst violators sat on it. With the United States at the table, and Iran being voted out, the council has issued condemnations of abuses in Syria and Iran, and ejected Libya when Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cracked down on protests.
"It would be a mistake to judge any administration's record on what the slogan is," the official said, arguing that the White House and State Department promote human rights in many forums and aspects beyond public statements. Mr. Obama, the official said, "is looking for the tools that are going to work."
Using human rights as a pillar of foreign policy inevitably exposes the chasm between the high ideal of American values ("It comports with our principles," Mr. Obama said on Monday) and the hardheaded pragmatism of advancing American business and security interests.
- 1
- 2
A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2012, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama Approach to Diplomacy Faces Test in China.
WASHINGTON — When Hillary Rodham Clinton made her first trip to China in 2009, barely a month into her tenure as secretary of state, she said that American concerns about human rights should not interfere with other pressing global issues on which the United States and China could find common ground. Human rights advocates were appalled, and under orders from the White House, Mrs. Clinton softened her remarks the next day.
But her candid admission reflected the cold calculation that continues to shape President Obama's foreign policy when it comes to championing rights and freedoms abroad. Quiet diplomacy and compromise, administration officials argue, are sometimes more effective, if less satisfying morally, than thunderous public condemnation.
The administration's strategy, already under fire from critics on the left and the right, now faces its most public test as Mrs. Clinton arrives again in Beijing for talks that are certain to receive far less attention than the uncertain fate of a Chinese lawyer, Chen Guangcheng, who escaped a brutalizing, illegal house arrest and has sought protection from American diplomats in the Chinese capital.
"This is a remarkable and possibly unprecedented opportunity for the United States to express sympathy and support for someone who is a folk hero now in China," said Sophie Richardson, the China director for Human Rights Watch.
She noted the administration's refrain, repeated Monday by Mr. Obama, that the United States welcomed China's growing prosperity and global influence, and added, "This is the moment to stand up and say we welcome the rise of China and the work of people like Chen Guangcheng."
Administration officials have so far opted for a different approach, refusing even to acknowledge Mr. Chen's case or the fact that he appears to be in the protective safety of American diplomats, though Mrs. Clinton has raised his mistreatment in the past. That has renewed criticism that the White House has soft-pedaled the question of human rights when it comes to China or other repressive countries whenever expedience dictates it.
Mr. Obama's aides dispute that, pointing to numerous statements by the president and Mrs. Clinton and, most recently, to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s toast at a State Department luncheon in February with China's vice president and presumed leader-to-be, Xi Jinping.
"We have been clear about our concern over the areas in which from our perspective conditions in China have deteriorated and about the plight of several very prominent individuals," Mr. Biden said as a chill permeated an otherwise sociable event.
For Mr. Obama, though, it is a question of tone and emphasis. Every president, to some degree, has championed human rights around the world. For the last 35 years the United States has produced an annual report on individual nations that have adhered to basic freedoms; the 36th is to be released this month. And yet each president during that time has also been reproached for ignoring abuses committed by countries whose security or economic importance mattered more to American national interest.
Ronald Reagan promoted political freedom behind the Iron Curtain but did so far less vigorously in Latin America. (He also negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union, whose abuses he denounced relentlessly.)
George W. Bush advocated a "Freedom Agenda" but faced the same accusations as Mr. Obama when it came to pushing Egypt, Russia or China — and endured accusations of hypocrisy for America's own actions in Iraq and on Guantánamo. No president has ever really taken Saudi Arabia to task as one of the world's most repressive societies, where religions other than Islam are banned, women cannot drive and no one can vote.
A senior official argued that the Obama administration had advanced the argument beyond the bully pulpit by, for example, rejoining the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, once derided as a den of hypocrisy because some of the worst violators sat on it. With the United States at the table, and Iran being voted out, the council has issued condemnations of abuses in Syria and Iran, and ejected Libya when Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cracked down on protests.
"It would be a mistake to judge any administration's record on what the slogan is," the official said, arguing that the White House and State Department promote human rights in many forums and aspects beyond public statements. Mr. Obama, the official said, "is looking for the tools that are going to work."
Using human rights as a pillar of foreign policy inevitably exposes the chasm between the high ideal of American values ("It comports with our principles," Mr. Obama said on Monday) and the hardheaded pragmatism of advancing American business and security interests.
- 1
- 2
A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2012, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama Approach to Diplomacy Faces Test in China.
by on May 1, 2012 Original Page: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplomacy-faces-test-in-china.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss