Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
In this, the winter of our foreign policy ‘resets’, the newest paradigm shift in Washington is reportedly that the Obama Administration is going to get tougher with China on its human rights record. Well.
I’ll resist the temptation for snark engendered by some of the Administration’s other failures to promote governments that respect the rule of law and the rights of their people (Iran? Honduras?). Knowing that human rights considerations are inevitably tempered by realpolitik (this may cause a firestorm here, but I see no other reason not to acknowledge the Armenian genocide), it’s nice to see any progress. And as someone who has been critical of the Administration’s stance vis-à-vis China before, this particular forward motion is a welcome change.
None of that, however, excuses the bizarre construction of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks rolling out our tougher line. As reported in the Washington Post last weekend, the first section of Secretary Clinton’s speech was admirable:
"America will continue to speak out and press China when it censors bloggers and imprisons activists, when religious believers, particularly those in unregistered groups, are denied full freedom of worship, when lawyers and legal advocates are sent to prison simply for representing clients who challenge the government's positions."
That sound you hear is a Ricochet contributor tiptoeing into the Secretary’s amen corner. Yes, there’s plenty of room for doubt here (the net effect of “speaking out” will be … ?), but this is the kind of grit I want from America’s chief diplomat. What was vexing, however, was the follow-up:
"Many in China resent or reject our advocacy of human rights as an intrusion on their sovereignty… But as a founding member of the United Nations, China has committed to respecting the rights of all its citizens."
Deconstructed on its own terms, this is a passage that implies China’s moral obligations have their origins in a piece of paper. If China had not been a founding member of the U.N. would the government be free to run roughshod over a billion plus chattel slaves?
For all the talk of American exceptionalism lately, I think we’d do well to remember that the core of the American creed is a belief in natural rights that exist prior to – and apart from – government. I have a hard time believing that those natural rights are hemmed in by national borders.
P.S. – Is there any more galling conservative pet peeve than the fact that spell check doesn’t recognize “exceptionalism”?
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
Troy Senik:
For all the talk of American exceptionalism lately, I think we’d do well to remember that the core of the American creed is a belief in natural rights that exist prior to – and apart from – government. I have a hard time believing that those natural rights are hemmed in by national borders.
Amen.
Dec '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
Ummm... The People's Republic of China was not a founding member of the United Nations. The People's Republic of China didn't exist at the time of the founding of the United Nations.
The Republic of China was a founding member, whose membership was wrested from it and given to the Communist usurper regime.
Given the cavalier way in which the United Nations treated one of its founding members and "permanent" members of its Security Council, why would the People's Republic of China have any qualms whatsoever about disregarding the UN's human rights conventions?
Mrs. Clinton really should, as Troy suggests, look for something more substantial and permanent as a source for the rights of Chinese citizens qua human beings than the flimsy pronouncements and unfulfilled commitments of the UN.
Dec '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
I assume that the photo is of a Chinese-made figurine of Hillary, and not a Catalan caganer.
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
I'll post the picture from the reverse side tomorrow ;)
Nov '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
A temporary course adjustment, perhaps. But progress? Doubtful. The bureaucrats at State have never cared much for the concept of human rights. If you think that Mrs. Clinton actually cares one bit about the suffering of Chinese people, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I expect our support for dissidents will mysteriously evaporate right around the time we get that revalued Yuan for which Mr. Obama has been clamoring.
Edited on Jan 17, 2011 at 10:09pmMay '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
I support Trump's call for a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports. The Chinese are cheating. They are keeping there currency low in order to destroy the competition. No reason why we should cooperate.
That's not free trade you say. SO WHAT? Is free trade a religion?
May '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
What's that in her left hand? Is that a kebab, or a scepter?
Oct '10
Re: Two Cheers for Hillary Clinton
The humanistic creed rejects natural "God given" rights in favor of the social contract. In this context Hillary is understandable in her interpretation of the source of human rights; they are not preexistent, they are a product of the "general will".