Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Runny Noses
My Intro to IR students took their first midterm today. I was amazed how many students had kleenexes and cough drops on top of their desk. I guess sickness really does spread easily on campuses.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Secretary State Clinton's First Visit to China
Human Rights (HR) groups like Amnesty were upset over Clinton’s remarks in her first trip to China. She commented that pressing China on issues like Tibet, or religious freedom “can’t interfere” with dialogue on other issues such as economic and environmental cooperation, or the stalled 6-party talks with N. Korea.
HR groups interpreted Clinton’s statement as implying that HR would play less of a priority in U.S.-PRC diplomatic relations. This comment triggers a key debate. Are Clinton’s statements any different from past Administration’s approach towards China? Yes, Bush often criticized China for HR abuses, but the US continued to cooperate w/China on economic and security issues, resulting in a period of relative improvement in US-China relations.
If you approach this from a liberal perspective, the argument is (and I believe this is Clinton’s position), it’s more fruitful to maintain dialogue and cooperation on several key issues, rather than risk jeopardizing bilateral ties over one (alebeit very important) issue. The hope is that China will eventually improve its record on human rights as it moves to become a more responsible, internationally legitimate player in int’l affairs. On the other hand, is it OK for the US to lower its standards or principles to achieve cooperation in other issues?
There are short term and long term trade-offs. But it leaves us with a fundamental question: can we ever follow a morally responsible foreign policy 100% of the time? This leads to a follow-up question: what is morally responsible? Calling out states on human rights violations may be the principled thing to do. However, if criticizing China on HR results in icy relations with negative repurcussion for the global economy, the U.S. job market, more pollution, would this still fall under the rubric of morally responsible? Rather than "calling out" China (i.e. pointing fingers), perhaps the U.S. could "encourage" China to improve its human rights record. This would continue to acknolwedge HR abuses in China, w/out risking damage to other areas of cooperation.
Note: Today's Post had an editorial criticizing Clinton's remarks. While Clinton is correct that HR talk has not changed much over the past decade, her comments can support or break the will of thousands of Chinese who fight for greater government accountability, civil liberties, and human rights. Also, will a slap on the wrist on HR issues really sour economic and security issues if they are also in China's interest to cooperate? Very good point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html?sub=AR
HR groups interpreted Clinton’s statement as implying that HR would play less of a priority in U.S.-PRC diplomatic relations. This comment triggers a key debate. Are Clinton’s statements any different from past Administration’s approach towards China? Yes, Bush often criticized China for HR abuses, but the US continued to cooperate w/China on economic and security issues, resulting in a period of relative improvement in US-China relations.
If you approach this from a liberal perspective, the argument is (and I believe this is Clinton’s position), it’s more fruitful to maintain dialogue and cooperation on several key issues, rather than risk jeopardizing bilateral ties over one (alebeit very important) issue. The hope is that China will eventually improve its record on human rights as it moves to become a more responsible, internationally legitimate player in int’l affairs. On the other hand, is it OK for the US to lower its standards or principles to achieve cooperation in other issues?
There are short term and long term trade-offs. But it leaves us with a fundamental question: can we ever follow a morally responsible foreign policy 100% of the time? This leads to a follow-up question: what is morally responsible? Calling out states on human rights violations may be the principled thing to do. However, if criticizing China on HR results in icy relations with negative repurcussion for the global economy, the U.S. job market, more pollution, would this still fall under the rubric of morally responsible? Rather than "calling out" China (i.e. pointing fingers), perhaps the U.S. could "encourage" China to improve its human rights record. This would continue to acknolwedge HR abuses in China, w/out risking damage to other areas of cooperation.
Note: Today's Post had an editorial criticizing Clinton's remarks. While Clinton is correct that HR talk has not changed much over the past decade, her comments can support or break the will of thousands of Chinese who fight for greater government accountability, civil liberties, and human rights. Also, will a slap on the wrist on HR issues really sour economic and security issues if they are also in China's interest to cooperate? Very good point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html?sub=AR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)