Just recently in China, a blind self-taught lawyer and activist, Chen, escaped after being placed under house arrest for more than eighteen months. How did he do it? Although his first attempt to escape did not come to fruition (Chen allegedly tried to dig a tunnel), he was able to scale the wall surrounding his house after pretending to be ill for days at a time. From there, Chen was allegedly driven by a friend to the U.S embassy where he is now being protected.
Chen's wife and daughter remain under house arrest while Chinese authorities continue to detain or search for other family members that might have information. Obama and other high ranking White House officials have not commented on the alleged whereabouts of Chen.
Potential G.O.P presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, argued for decisive action, asking the Obama administration to "take every measure" (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/04/how-blind-chinese-activist-escapes-house-arrest/51699/). Romney also stated that the "country must play a strong role in urging reform in China and supporting those fighting for the freedoms we enjoy." Many human rights groups including ChinaAid and Human Rights Watch take the same stance as Romney, suggesting that the U.S remove Chen and his family for "medical reasons".
Fellow Aragon Hitchhiker... where do you stand on this issue? Should the United States choose to play a role in the activist's future or should he be handed over to Chinese authorities (assuming he is currently in U.S custody). Also, does the United States have the right to sequester Chen away from the Chinese government on the basis of different social ideology and policy? Don't forget to consider the current state of U.S-China relations in your responses! :D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First off, let me say that OF COURSE Mitt Romney argued for decisive action. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner, Romney will not be participating in diplomatic talks with China next week. As Romney has no real political control over this issue in his current capacity, criticism of what Obama's administration is doing must be easy for him. Hence, I do not believe Mitt Romney is the pivotal effector of change here.
Nevertheless, Chen Guangcheng presents a fork in the road for the future of Chinese politics. Either China will push this issue to the limit and effectively clamp down harder on escaped dissidents, or China will seize this opportunity that Chen has provided to them and reform its internal political structure. This same division more or less manifested in 1989 after the protests in Tiananmen Square. Ergo, this debate is not about Chen Guangcheng. This debate concerns Obama's ability to balance "American ideals with American interests" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/this-blind-chinese-lawyer-may-be-the-toughest-foreign-policy-challenge-obama-has-ever-faced/256496/).
To provide some background, Chen campaigned against forced abortions and sterilizations that were enacted to support China's one-child policy. There is no debate as to whether or not China sees Chen as a threat. China has blocked "blind man" and "UA898 (the flight on which he putatively flew to Washington)" from Weibo, the top microblogging site in China. If american celebrity Christian Bale was roughed up by Chinese authorities just for attempting to visit Chen under house arrest (which he was), how will China react to Obama grants Chen amnesty?
Just two months ago, the police chief of Chongqing confessed his boss' roles in murdering a British citizen and sought asylum from the United States. The U.S. turned him away, and he was promptly arrested. The U.S. obviously does care about not upsetting China.
The U.S. now has two choices: preserving political capital in Beijing or preserving America's image to the rest of the world. If the U.S. grants Chen amnesty, it could lose all the diplomatic ground it has gained in its extended courtship of China. Still, I feel the opposite choice is worse: abandoning a selfless, blind activist to a country that will surely execute him. If Chen asks for amnesty, the very definition of amnesty implies that we should grant it. To not do so would reflect poorly on how Obama chooses to wield American power in Asia.
Thank you for your response. I am particularly humbled by the 5 AM timestamp.
I find myself agreeing with the many points you have elaborated on. It is true that Romney is not in any position to make an actual decision, but, if anything, his remarks will serve as an effective political gimmick to induce support for his campaign. I also agree that how Obama chooses to handle the situation will greatly impact our relationship with China (positively or negatively).
However, while I understand your concern for Chen (I do), I feel the need to ask you a question. If the U.S was to grant amnesty to Chen, would that be the end of our intervention? At what point can U.S involvement be labeled as excessive or even harmful to the cause of promoting basic human rights in China? The Chinese have a rich history that dates back thousands of years and, as such, have different methodologies and different social norms deeply embedded within their culture. Perhaps provoking the Chinese government by pushing our established view of basic human rights (which I adamantly support and believe in) is not the easiest/fastest way to reach the end goal-- a democratic China.
I personally believe that, left alone, China will eventually be forced to become more democratic. The advent of the internet has already produced visible results. Each day more and more people are gaining access to the internet along with the new ideas and concepts to be found there as well. Although the Chinese government has responded by increasing its use of internet censorship, bloggers continue to find new ways to subvert the government's restrictions. But alas, only time shall tell.
It will be interesting to see what the Obama administration decides to do and the subsequent events.
Haha, there's nothing I like more than posting on Hitchhiker's before the sun rises!
I think I can safely say that most of the free world admires Chen for his activism under communist China; ergo, any US decision to grant him amnesty would be backed by almost all of our allies overseas (post hoc ergo propter hoc, our allies would lose faith in our democratic ideals if we abandon Chen to China). I don't think this particular example represents US attempts to enforce our own Western beliefs on Chinese culture, rather, China has been consistently violating basic human rights (established by the UN) for years now. Chen and his family have been punished by the Chinese government for the past six years after Chen discovered an illegal system of forced abortions and subsequently began to campaign for human rights. Offering Chen up for his unwilling execution would only reinforce China's idea that because it is so mighty, it can break the rules.
China does have a rich traditional history of feudalism: a system in which local authorities can break the law as long as they do not threaten the central government's rule. Yes, this is a historical tradition, but I do not think that all traditions are necessarily worth preserving (e.g. footbinding, communism, etc.)
Now, I do believe that sometimes we must make sacrifices for the greater good. Chen is one man, and jeopardizing relations with a country that is practically necessary for all of our foreign policy interactions in Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, etc. I would agree with Rep. Jon Huntsman in saying that the target of foreign policy over the next decade or so will shift into the Pacific, so our relations with China only become exponentially more important.
Nevertheless, Chen's escape has come at a prime time for security reform in China. China's security apparatus is controlled by Zhou Yongkang, a 69-year-old man due for retirement when the Chinese Congress next convenes. PM Wen Jiabao, who has propounded ideas of reform for quite some time now, has the opportunity to replace Zhou with a security officer more concerned with human rights and less about maintaining totalitarianism.
Yes, many Chinese citizens have found ways to circumvent China's censorship, but China might react by clamping down even further, instead of embracing these new freedoms. Yes, I imagine China would eventually succumb to some form of democracy in the future, but the US must maintain its interests in its strategic relations with China, and US interests desire a more democratic China, now. China will (probably) be the next superpower, and it only serves the US' endgoals to encourage reform now.
My apologies for my lack of brevity, but I'm enjoying this discussion :)
I can see that! Your lack of brevity is most welcome.
I think that it is very interesting that it has become the United States' responsibility to preserve the fundamental human rights that all free nations and their peoples enjoy. You suggest that a U.S decision to grant amnesty would be backed by our allies, but is there a specific reason that prevents other nations (UK, Canada, and France) from giving this activist amnesty? If we are to consider the "greater good", wouldn't it make more sense to both preserve our relations with China while rescuing Chen and his family from the abusive Chinese authorities? Should the other free nations of this world be able to sit still while their personal ideals are also being threatened?
That being said, I don't think China should be exempt from following the UN's established guidelines especially since China is a key member of the UN Security Council. However, again I must refer to their history. The last dynasty ruled until 1912. 1912! That is merely a single century! The Chinese people have yet to experience rule under a democratic government. During the dynastic period, the emperor's word was law. This feudal autocracy was in operation only a century before. What I am arguing is that China has not been given time to evolve on its own. After the fall of the last dynasty (1912-1949), China was a picture of confusion and chaos, only to end with a Japanese invasion and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. It has only been 63 years since the establishment of a cohesive government there! It is important to note that the United States has been a democracy for a little more than 200 years, yet can we call our current system of rule perfectly just and fair? Sixty years ago, segregation was common practice in the southern states!! My point is that this aggressive push for change from other democratic nations might not be the BEST solution. Consider this... if actions taken by the Obama administration or other governments were to threaten the safety/balance of the current ruling party, is it not feasible to see China "clamp down even further" in defense as well? When a turtle becomes threatened, does it not choose to defend itself by hiding within its shell? I enjoy the rights that are guaranteed to me by our Constitution and I believe the Chinese people are seeking those same rights, but the fact is change takes time. To ask for reforms with a sense of urgency or imagined deadline, is to be inconsiderate of the process.
Is it true that U.S interests dictate a more democratic China? Would the Obama administration prefer a democratic China or a cooperative one? It is quite conceivable that a more democratic China would lead to improved relations between the two nations, but at the same time the argument still stands.
Newsflash! Chen has apparently left the U.S embassy under his free will only to immediately ask for safe passage from China, hours later(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17933640). What do you think is the best move for the Obama administration in this circumstance? It is hard for me to see a way for all parties involved to be reasonably satisfied with a single outcome.
I actually just found this video that might shed some light on the Chinese perspective concerning this whole situation. While slightly outdated, it provides relevant insight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUc0nQtQYbU
Post a Comment