[:en]What does an Obama administration mean for advocates of human rights in China? As the President and Secretary of State unpack their boxes in their new offices, this has become a favorite subject of debate at China human rights gatherings.

When it comes to international rights advocacy, the past eight years have been grim. Human rights groups would trot reports and press
releases over to Congress or the State Department, asking them to raise one case or another with the Chinese government. Instead, they often found people in D.C. throwing up their hands in despair.

The U.S. just didn’t have much influence when it pressed China on human rights — largely because China has become so strong, but also because the U.S. record on human rights has been so poor. Try complaining about police abuse in China when you come from the country responsible for Abu Ghraib.

So, hope and change? Signals from the Obama camp have given plenty of fodder to people who think Clinton will be conservative, as well as those who think she’ll be outspoken.

Those who think the new administration is going to keep its mouth shut on human rights in China like to cite the following facts:

  • The Hearing: In  her confirmation hearing, Ms. Clinton said she’d use “smart power, a combination of principles and pragmatism” in designing U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. relationship with China is constrained by certain realities – China’s ownership of our vast debt being the most obvious. The U.S. also needs China’s help on “terrorism, proliferation, climate change, and reforming financial markets.” In China, “pragmatism” is usually code for keeping your mouth shut in order to keep your foot in the door.
  • The Most Favored Economy: President Clinton was the one who got China Most Favored Nation status, over the protests of Congressional human rights advocates. He was a proponent of the idea, then-popular, now more or less discredited, that helping China to develop economically would lead to political reforms. Many assume those views are shared by his wife.
  • The Team: In general, President Obama’s incoming foreign policy advisors include some longtime China wonks from the Clinton administration who take the glass-half-full view, seeing the silver lining of progress around even the darkest human rights cloud.  (Imprisonment, detention, house arrest? Yes, they say, but things were so much worse under Mao.)
  • The Paypals: Neither Ms. Clinton and President Clinton have been shy about accepting donations from China, for their campaigns and for the Clinton Foundation. For that matter, the Clinton Foundation has held its cards close to its chest in China, avoiding anything that
    might smack of criticism in favor of partnerships with the authorities. Again, pessimists think this gives Ms. Clinton incentive to downplay human rights.

But there are others who think Clinton might be a bit more outspoken than her predecessor – or for that matter, than her husband. They remember these things about Ms. Clinton’s personal record:

  • The Conference: At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, Clinton not only delivered a ringing call for
    women’s rights     to be viewed as human rights, but also directly criticized China for restrictions on free speech and freedom of association.
  •  The Award: In 2006, Vital Voices, a group Ms. Clinton helped found, gave Chinese AIDS advocate Dr. Gao Yaojie a human rights award. The Henan provincial government placed Dr. Gao under house arrest and refused to allow her to travel to accept the award. Ms. Clinton wrote to Vice Premier Wu Yi, who interceded so that Dr. Gao could come to the U.S. and receive her award. A friend who saw the letter said it was pitch-perfect for China.
  • The Genocide: Both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have indicated that the continuing disaster in Darfur is a matter of concern, which could mean a willingness to butt heads with China if necessary.
  • The Debt: During her campaign, Ms. Clinton raised concerns about the U.S. reliance on China to finance debt: “How do you criticize your banker?” As the Democratic nominee, President Obama used almost the same words. That would seem to signal a shared desire, whether or not it can be acted on, to actually criticize the banker. (Actually, Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner gave criticizing the banker a try during his hearing this week, denouncing China’s “currency manipulation” – and thus hinting that the new administration may play a bit tougher with China.)
  • And of course, the President: As someone who aims to “make transparency and rule of law hallmarks” of his administration, and as a former community activist, some people ask, will President Obama ignore abuses against rights activists? Is the first African American president really likely to play along when China asks him not to meet the banned Tibetan leader?

The answer is probably: it depends. After all, the main purpose of U.S. foreign policy is not to advance human rights, but to advance U.S. interests.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton are most likely to take up human rights in China when they feel it will be strategically possible and desirable – or when pressure from the U.S. public compels them to take it up.

At her hearing, Ms. Clinton said the U.S. should use “the full range of tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural — picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.”  Her letter to Ms. Wu Yi on behalf of Dr. Gao was a good example of that approach. It was a tactic that worked by appealing to allies inside the government, far better than embarrassing Beijing would have done.

Human rights activists can be strategic, also. We may get better traction when we raise issues the Secretary of State has said she cares deeply
about: women’s rights, economic and social rights, and human trafficking (we’re not sure yet where she stands on the rights of sex workers). We can probably ask the Secretary of State to use her connections behind the scenes on individual cases. And above all, since both the new president and the Secretary of State are sophisticated politicians, mobilizing public support and making the issues hard for them to ignore are always good advocacy strategy.[:zh]

What does an Obama
administration mean for advocates of human rights in China? As the President
and Secretary of State unpack their boxes in their new offices, this
has become a favorite subject of debate at China human rights gatherings.

When it comes to international rights advocacy, the past
eight years have been grim. Human rights groups would trot reports and press
releases over to Congress or the State Department, asking them to raise one case
or another with the Chinese government. Instead, they often found people in
D.C. throwing up their hands in despair.

 

The U.S. just
didn’t have much influence when it pressed China
on human rights — largely because China
has become so strong, but also because the U.S. record on human rights has
been so poor. Try complaining about police abuse in China when you come from the
country responsible for Abu Ghraib.

 

So, hope and change? Signals from the Obama camp have given
plenty of fodder to people who think Clinton
will be conservative, as well as those who think she’ll be outspoken.

 

Those who think the new administration is going to keep its
mouth shut on human rights in China
like to cite the following facts:

 

  • The Hearing: In  her confirmation
    hearing    , Ms. Clinton said she’d use “smart power, a combination of
    principles and pragmatism” in designing U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. relationship with China is constrained by certain realities –
    China’s
    ownership of our vast debt being the most obvious. The U.S. also needs China’s help on “terrorism,
    proliferation, climate change, and reforming financial markets.” In China,
    “pragmatism” is usually code for keeping your mouth shut in order to keep your foot
    in the door.

 

  • The Most Favored Economy: President
    Clinton was the one who got China Most Favored
    Nation     status, over the protests of Congressional human rights
    advocates. He was a proponent of the idea, then-popular, now more or less
    discredited, that helping China
    to develop economically would lead to political reforms. Many assume those
    views are shared by his wife.

 

  • The Team: In general, President
    Obama’s incoming foreign policy advisors include some longtime China wonks from the Clinton administration who take the
    glass-half-full view, seeing the silver lining of progress around even
    the darkest human rights cloud. (Imprisonment, detention, house arrest?
    Yes, they say, but things were so much worse under Mao.)

 

  • The Paypals: Neither Ms. Clinton
    and President Clinton have been shy about accepting donations from China,
    for their campaigns and for the Clinton Foundation. For that matter, the Clinton Foundation has held
    its cards close to its chest in China, avoiding anything that
    might smack of criticism in favor of partnerships with the authorities.
    Again, pessimists think this gives Ms. Clinton incentive to downplay human
    rights.

 

But there are others who think Clinton might be a bit more outspoken than
her predecessor – or for that matter, than her husband. They remember these
things about Ms. Clinton’s personal record:

 

 

  • The Conference: At the Fourth World
    Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, Clinton not only delivered a
    ringing call for
    women’s rights     to be viewed as human rights, but also directly
    criticized China for restrictions on free speech and freedom of
    association.

 

  •  The
    Award:     In 2006, Vital Voices,
    a group Ms. Clinton helped found, gave Chinese AIDS advocate Dr. Gao
    Yaojie a human rights award. The Henan
    provincial government placed Dr.
    Gao under house arrest     and refused to allow her to travel to accept the
    award. Ms. Clinton wrote to Vice Premier Wu Yi, who interceded so that Dr.
    Gao could come to the U.S.
    and receive her award. A friend who saw the letter said it was
    pitch-perfect for China.

 

  • The Genocide: Both Ms. Clinton and
    Mr. Obama have indicated that the continuing disaster in Darfur is a
    matter of concern, which could mean a willingness to butt heads with China
    if necessary.

 

  • The Debt: During her campaign, Ms.
    Clinton raised
    concerns     about the U.S.
    reliance on China
    to finance debt: “How do you criticize your banker?” As the Democratic
    nominee, President Obama used almost the same words. That would seem to
    signal a shared desire, whether or not it can be acted on, to actually criticize
    the banker. (Actually, Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner gave
    criticizing the banker a try     during his hearing this week, denouncing China’s “currency manipulation” – and thus hinting
    that the new administration may play a bit tougher with China.)

 

  • And of course, the President: As
    someone who aims to “make transparency and rule of law hallmarks” of his
    administration, and as a former community activist, some people ask, will
    President Obama ignore abuses against rights activists? Is the first
    African American president really likely to play along when China asks
    him not to meet the banned Tibetan leader?

 

The answer is probably: it depends. After all, the main purpose of U.S. foreign policy is not to advance human rights, but to advance U.S. interests.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton are most likely to take up human rights in China when they feel it will be strategically
possible and desirable – or when pressure from the U.S. public compels them to take it
up.

 

At her hearing, Ms. Clinton said the U.S. should use
“the full range of tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military,
political, legal, and cultural — picking the right tool, or combination of
tools, for each situation.”  Her letter
to Ms. Wu Yi on behalf of Dr. Gao was a good example of that approach. It was a
tactic that worked by appealing to allies inside the government, far better
than embarrassing Beijing
would have done.

 

Human rights activists can be strategic, also. We may get
better traction when we raise issues the Secretary of State has said she cares deeply
about: women’s rights, economic and social rights, and human trafficking (we’re
not sure yet where she stands on the rights of sex workers). We can probably ask
the Secretary of State to use her connections behind the scenes on individual
cases. And above all, since both the new president and the Secretary of State
are sophisticated politicians, mobilizing public support and making the issues
hard for them to ignore are always good advocacy strategy.

[:]

Categories: All Posts, Quarterly Newsletter  •  Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply