The Bitting of one's Tongue

Did you know in 1957 shortly after the Chinese revolution that brought Mao to power and china's population stood at 672 million (half of today's 1.21 billion) a report was released that warned that China's rapidly growing population was jeopardizing the country's development?

Although the author Ma Yinchu, the President of Beijing University, with a Master of Economics from Yale and Ph.D from Columbia (that's to say he's a smart guy), categorized himself as Marxist, national newspapers attacked him, aligning him with the English "reactionary" Rev. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). Malthus had publicly rejected in his Essay on Population England's welfare laws, while supporting war and famine on the working class population. Chinese, Soviets, Marx and Engels all had condemned Malthus as an apologist for the bourgeoisie. In the case of Ma's report, it was seen as using demographic analysis to explain away the capitalist exploitations that caused people's sufferings.

By 1960 this pressure had forced Ma to resign from his position as well as all of his government posts. For the next twenty years Ma was silenced, unable to lecture or publish. Judith Shapiro, called this "one of the greatest mistakes of the Mao years." She argues that had Ma been able to continue to warn about the dangers of population growth , there might have been public dialogue and debate and China could "have adopted vigorous planning programs in time to head off the population crisis." There is a saying in China, "We lost one Ma Yinchu but we gained an extra 300 million people."

I share this story to underline China's history with people who question the state's authority or ideology. Ma was rehabilitated at the age of 98, but most people who were persecuted under Mao's famous Hundred Flowers campaign - in which Mao called for advice for the country's improvement and then turn around and jailed anyone who spoke up - were not.

This isn't a practice only rooted in Chinese history, need I remind you that this summer will mark the twenty year anniversary of Tiananmen. And yet, this practice still happens in modern day China. If you will remember, China announced a permit process and designated areas for protests at the Olympics last August. China touted the empty zones during the Olympics. What you may not know is most people who applied were rejected and those who received a permit were arrested: in January one man, received a 3 year jail sentence and one man is serving an opened ended sentence. The Human Rights Watch said that the Games became a catalyst for intensified human-rights abuse. Really, it was the Hundred Flowers Campaign all over again.

Today, China announced that a 62-year-old woman named Zhong Ruihua, who had traveled to Beijing to protest will be brought on charges of Disturbing the Peace. Yes, during the Paralympics in August she traveled to Beijing along with 10 people from Luizhou, Guangxi for the intent to protest against the the common practice of seizure of property by the government. However, it is important to note that Zhong was not protesting at the time of her arrest, and had not yet protested anything. Yet, an hour earlier in an interview with the New York Times she had stated her intent to protest. She was arrested upon exiting her hotel and was not heard from, quite frankly the government wouldn't even confirm she was in custody until yesterday. The NYT at the time published a story about the would-be protester's disappearance.

But what is most concerning is not that the Chinese government viewed a 62 year old woman as a threat, but amongst the 11 people jailed a 4 month old baby was included. No one has heard from the child or her mother since. And to think Clinton in an effort to keep the peace with China during her recent visit (after all the US government needs China to keep buying our T-Bills), never once publicly raised the issue of human rights violations in China.

This is such a stark change from her visit to China in 1995 where she publicly admonished the Chinese government in front of 5,000 hand picked party members (the speech was blacked out on domestic television and in the press) saying:

"Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly.... It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions."

It's such a shame that Clinton has changed her tone. Personally, having studied Sino-US foreign policy it would not surprise me in the least to learn that Zhong appearance before the court (remember, China does not have due process) coincided with Clinton's arrival in China. Coincidence? I am apt not to think so. But I am not sure that the mere presence of Zhong alone and not the other missing would-be protesters was enough of a concession on the part of the Chinese to account for Clinton's silence on the issue when she clearly feels strongly (remember her comments during the Primaries calling on US to boycott the Olympics in response to the Tibet Protest crackdown?).

Yes, the US needs China's cooperation on many issues, including regional security (North Korea), energy and climate change and global economics and finance. But what is often forgotten is that in this age of globalization China needs the US just as much if not more, due to the dynamism of the Chinese economy. Many people fear the Chinese selling US T-bonds, or at the least not purchasing more. The Chinese economy is dependent upon the US, Europe, and Japan for growth. It is access to these markets that China jepordizes. If the US sells their T-bonds, it would not be a far stretch of the imagination for Washington to retaliate with protectionst policies.

Clinton's silence on the issue of human rights during her trip marks a de-link human rights from other U.S. concerns. In failing to make clear of our expectations of China, i.e., insisting that Beijing abide by key universal principles in handling issues such as labor standards, environmental protection, human rights, Tibet and Taiwan, the US sends the wrong message to both the world community and Asia. As the US supports the incorporation of China into the world system, it needs to as a "responsible stakeholder." At this time they have shown they are not responsible international citizens; for the reality of the fundamental character of the CCP regime lie in the issues of human rights as well as Taiwan and Tibet.

As Clinton explained, the policy that America is "seeking to reach consensus on issues that are less contentious than Taiwan, Tibet and human rights" and while the U.S. must continue to "press" Beijing on such issues, such pressure "cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises." Clinton though doesn't seem to realize that she is creating unintended side-effects. In the discouragement of activism for democracy and human rights within China, Clinton is granting Beiijing an even freer hand to throw its military and diplomatic weight, especially in relation to Taiwan and Tibet, and, ironically, the erosion of Washington's leverage in bargaining with Beijing on economic issues.