Eh, it would have more admirable if (0.00 / 0)

she hadn't explicitly expressed a lack of immediate interest in human right concerns.  

---

by: sb @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 17:18:38 PM UTC

Unless we try Bush for War Crimes (4.00 / 4)

we can't use "Human Rights" as a diplomatic talking point without looking like hypocrites.

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 18:02:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's one thing to not talk about human rights. (0.00 / 0)

It's quite another to make a pointed declaration that you're not going to take about human rights because they are of limited concern.

---

by: sb @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 18:27:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pointed declaration? (4.00 / 1)

Good thing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked to the Chinese leaders about human rights, then:

Speaking after a meeting with the foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, Mrs. Clinton said she had raised the Tibet issue and other concerns. But she argued that the work of advocacy groups and people in civil society in this area was "at least as important" as that of government officials.

Obama's argument that we should talk to adversaries and work on areas where we can agree was central to the foreign policy he put forward in the primaries. It is also important for organizations like Amnesty International to keep up the pressure on human rights. But I don't see how twisting Obama's policy into something else, as you appear to be doing here, does anything to advance human rights.

---

by: souvarine @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 19:19:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh, you can read the headlines from (0.00 / 0)

Australia. "In China, Clinton avoids rights issue":
http://www.watoday.com.au/worl...

or the BBC, "Before arriving in Beijing, Mrs Clinton said the debate with China over human rights, Taiwan and Tibet should not interfere with attempts to reach consensus on broader issues."

You can pretend it's not a public declaration, but, um, it is exactly that. Messages reverberate, and it's awfully silly to pretend otherwise. Here's what Amnesty International had to say,""The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues...But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China." But I guess you're saying we should abdicate all responsiblity to AI, huh?

Furthermore, I did not distort Obama's policy into something else, given I didn't go into Obama's policy, beyond reiterating Clinton's own message.  

---

by: sb @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 19:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

she talked about human rights (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton made no declaration that she would not talk about human rights, and she did in fact talk about human rights with Chinese leaders.

Amnesty International's point is different, they object to Obama's ordering of priorities with regard to China. They have a legitimate but I would argue largely rhetorical point. Human rights is a priority of the Obama administration, but not to the exclusion of other priorities, as Amnesty knows. Here they are objecting to Clinton honestly stating that fact on the grounds that admitting the truth "damages future US initiatives." Clinton, and Obama, believe that speaking honestly will not damage US initiatives, they believe that honesty will strengthen our ability to make progress with China on priorities including human rights.

---

by: souvarine @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 20:06:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She explicitly said that human rights would be a lower priority (0.00 / 0)

her trip, which marginalizes the issue. quite unnecessarily.  Indisputibly, it was a message that heard around the world. If you want to argue that the concern is strictly a rhetorical point, then you're baldly downplaying what diplomacy is. So, then, why make the trip if diplomacy matters for nothing?  

---

by: sb @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 20:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, we are smart enough to figure out how to have the right kind of growth. (4.00 / 1)

We're just not smart enough to actually do it.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 17:58:05 PM UTC

More humility (0.00 / 0)

less scolding.

I realize scolding is better than bombing in terms of its destructiveness (and therefore an improvement), but it's not exactly great diplomacy, or likely to achieve anything other than making people in other countries think the US is arrogant. It seems tailor made to convincing the Chinese that not fighting global warming is the height of nationalism.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 19:18:17 PM UTC

stimulus? (0.00 / 0)

How exactly does that legislation belong in a spending stimulus bill?  I'm not saying it's bad legislation, but it doesn't exactly strike me as the kind of thing that's going to create jobs, either.

---

by: ccarollo @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 00:51:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]