How to Address Human Rights in US Foreign Policy

My splendid co-author (Danielle Chubb) and I published our piece in today's Washington Post Monkey Cage blog: Will raising human rights issues really derail nuclear negotiations with North Korea?

I happened to see a similar sort of argument for raising human rights with China as well, titled "4 ways the U.S. can raise human rights issues with China."

And I found out my colleague at Catholic University and director of IPR, Bob Destro, was nominated as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

The One-Child Policy and Teaching About Human Rights in China

China ended it's controversial one-child policy last week, most likely on economic rather than any humanitarian grounds given potential labor shortages and an ageing population. The NY Times provided a timeline chronicling the implementation and effects of the policy. The one-child policy is often associated with forced abortions, compulsory sterilization, infanticide, and other abuses committed by party officials (usually at the local level). Here is one anecdote from the Washington Post:

Katherine Hesse. From NY Times.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/asia/one-child-rule-china.html

His wife was seven months pregnant with their second child when the group of people barged into his home and took her away. He followed them to the local hospital, where — against medical advice and despite his pleadings — they jammed a needle into her belly.“They grabbed my wife’s body like they were grabbing a pig, four or five people holding her hands and legs and head, and injected a shot into her belly,” the man said, asking not to be named for fear of retribution. “Neither my wife nor I signed any consent form.”Ten hours later, she gave birth to a boy, wriggling and faintly crying. But the doctors in southern Hunan province would not even let her hold the dying infant, the husband said. They put the baby in a plastic bag and instructed him to pay a cleaner a small sum to bury it on a nearby hill.

Several other news stories appeared about the horrors of the one-child policy last week. See here, here, and here. Adding to criticism, despite the welcome end to the one-child policy, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International argued that the policy change didn't address the deeper issue of setting limits on child bearing. Coincidentally, I invited renowned activist Chen Guangchen, currently affiliated with Catholic University, to my class the week before China's announcement. Mr. Chen has made it his life commitment to challenge the abuses associated with the one-child policy. Despite this qualified victory, I'm certain he will continue to press on with his activism.

There is no question that this policy has resulted in horrible abuses. A classic example of initially well-intentioned social engineering gone wrong (future labor shortages, uneven gender ratios, inability to support ageing population etc...). But from a teaching standpoint, I am curious to hear the official Chinese stance on the one-child policy. Was there ever any merit to this policy which has been thoroughly tarnished in the West?  Did the CCP intentionally encourage abuse to support policy? Some of the articles I read indicated it wasn't necessarily the central government which enforced abortions, bur rather local party cadres intent on moving up in the ranks. How effective was the one-child policy? Amartya Sen argues more credit is given to the one-child policy than warranted (he attributes declining fertility to other factors such as women empowerment  and new norms of smaller households).

I have one student from mainland China in my Intro to IR class and wondered what was going through his mind during Chen Guangchen's discussion. His presence has made me mindful of how I discuss China in class, especially after inviting Mr. Chen. I wouldn't say it's self-censoring, but I'm reminded that all sides of the debate should be represented, even if China is an easy target to condemn for its human rights abuses.

North Korea New Round-up: Comission of Inquiry on Human Rights; NK Photos; Cell Phones

The UNHRC's Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea released its report a couple weeks ago. An excerpt from the report is here.  One of the more interesting highlights is committee's suggestion that NK leaders might face charges at the International Criminal Court.

More details about North Korean cell phones appeared on 38 North by Yonho Kim, a corresonpdant for Voice of America. Earlier, on 38 North, Ruediger Frank presented a somewhat comical analysis of tablets in North Korea.

Some truths about photos from North Korea.

The Laotian Nine: Escaping or Trafficked out of North Korea?

A North Korean human rights issue which has captured much attention recently is the return of the Laotian Nine: last month, nine North Korean defectors (all reportedly orphans) caught in Laos were detained by the Laotian government before being repatriated back to North Korea. The nine, with the aid of an activist/pastor, had navigated the underground railroad out of North Korea through China and into Laos over the past two years in hopes of seeking asylum in South Korea. Laotian actions potentially violated international law which prevents countries from repatriating refugees if their lives are endangered. Because of the media spotlight, there's some hope that the nine orphans, mostly children, will avoid being sent to the gulags, but there fate now is unknown.The case has received attention not only because of the number of children involved, but because Laos had been seen as a relative safe haven for defectors.

It's clear that Pyongyang has been cracking down on the number of defectors the past few years. There's speculation that the North Koreans (and perhaps the Chinese) may have pressured the Laotian government this time to repatriate the nine young defectors. The Laotian (and North Korean) government claimed that the nine were "trafficked"  out of North Korea by a Christian activist/pastor.

Here lies the moral and legal dilemma faced by third party countries like Laos or China and the importance of labels. In China, those who escape North Korea are labeled as "economic migrants" rather than refugees. As economic migrants, they are not protected under international law and therefore sent back to North Korea. In the Laotian nine case, Vientiane claimed the nine were "trafficked", an action which paradoxically makes the children victims of human rights abuse. Morally, we know it's wrong to send defectors back to North Korea if the chance of torture, hard labor, or death for defectors are high (which they are according to human rights reports). But legally, what do you do if providing safe haven or aiding defectors violates the sovereignty of another country (in this case North Korea). To put this in perspective, if a U.S. citizen breaks the law and flees another country, the US would certainly not want other countries giving safe haven to defectors and insist they be repatriated back to the U.S. (i.e. draft dodgers during the Vietnam era, or more recently, Edward Snowden). And yes, I'm aware the U.S. is no North Korea.

Of course, we tend to treat North Korea as a country which has given up its right to be judged as a sovereign state since North Korea repeatedly violates international law (or norms, natural law etc...) and apply domestic laws arbitrarily and unevenly (North Korea laws are interpreted and applied at the discretion of the regime. But here's a somewhat alternative view). Most human rights advocates, including myself, are appalled at the decision to repatriate the nine defectors, mostly children. Yet from the perspective of Vientiane, Beijing, or Pyeongyang which also consider national interests, diplomatic relations, and economic costs and not just moral reputation and international codes of ethics, the decision is surely a complicated one. Activists and states which adhere closely to the UN conventions must continue to persuade - through instrumental means or moral suasion - why a blanket policy of repatriation is wrong (i.e. there must be a way to distinguish between refugees, economic migrants, and trafficked persons). They must also press countries which have some diplomatic purchase over North Korea (i.e. China) to push Pyeongyang to address issues which are at the root cause of defection: food shortages, abject poverty, and human rights abuses.

Social Justice and the Common Good

Several months ago I posted a blog about the Justice Conference in light of a recent talk I had given on social justice. Social justice is an issue of personal faith for me rather than a topic for research, but I'm beginning to find ways to bring the two together.

 Although its less not at all obvious at my overtly Catholic institution, I do get the sense that academics have a harder time taking evangelical Christians as a group seriously. It doesn't help that the Evangelicals get a bad rap from secular liberals. 

What's sometimes lost or forgotten in the vitrol aimed at Evangelicals and Catholics is that many of these religious folks actually do care about others including the poor. I cut and taped this article by Donald Wuerl, currently the Archbishop of Washington DC, on my office door in January. His piece was in response to a petition identifying the Catholic Church as a hate group due to its position on homosexuality. In the article, he reminds us that the Archidiocese of Washington  functions as the largest non-governmental provider of social services in the DC area. I see several trucks giving out free meals to homeless outside the World Bank every evening - and I'm sure they are part of some faith-based ministry. Archbishop Wuerl writes: 

The church does not do these things for money or profit or because they’re nice to do. When the church treats the sick and injured, or feeds the hungry, or teaches, or provides assistance to those in need, it does so as an answer to the call made by Jesus Christ. We are obligated to do these and other works of mercy and to give voice to moral truth because He asks us to.

I remembered the piece by Fr. Wuerl after reading an op-ed from Michael Gerson who also linked Christian teaching with social justice. In searching for the common good, we pursue social justice (something I hear often at my Catholic-affiliated university, although clearly not practiced by all). The op-ed is premised with the idea/hope that American politics would look towards the common good.  Searching for the common good may be one way of bridging the divide and mitigating the dangers of extreme polarization in domestic politics and foreign policy.

So why am I writing about all this on my research blog?  A recurring theme in my research is how/why people come to draw different assumptions and conclusions about the world. In other words, how are beliefs, ideas, and worldviews shaped and how does politics and contention stem from these different beliefs and assumptions?  Take for instance these peace activist recently arrested for breaking into a nuclear facility. Why are they opposed to nukes? What motivated them to break the law? How does their understanding of security differ from that of the government's (and also the looney prosecutors who claim that these activists comprised American national security)?

One thing my social science training has taught me is that categories like activists or Evangelicals are rarely homogeneous, as much as we would like them to be. Christian tradition can produce contrasting conclusions as I found in my short research on North Korean human rights. Here's a comment from Gerson which particularly rang true in my findings on Evangelicals and human rights. Can you guess which group adhere to naming-and-shaming strategies and which ones focus on humanitarian assistance/engagement? 

"Nearly every Christian tradition of social ethics encompasses two sorts of justice. The first is procedural justice: giving people what they deserve under contracts and the law. The second is distributive justice: meeting some needs just because human beings are human beings. This is not the same thing as egalitarianism; confiscation is not compassion. But distributive justice requires a decent provision for the vulnerable and destitute. And this is not just a matter of personal charity. Social justice is more than crumbs from the table; it depends on the existence of social and economic conditions that allow people to live, work and thrive."

Amanda Murdie on Human Rights Treaties and Virginity Pledges

Amanda Murdie had a terrific post titled Human Rights Treaties Are Like Virginity Pledges. The basic gist is that states signing human rights treaties has little effect in improving human rights practices because 1) Enforcement mechanisms are weak; 2) States sign for reasons that have nothing to do with commitment to change behavior (i.e. don't want to be stigmatized for not signing; signing gets you some immediate benefit in return with no cost to comply). The debates outlined here raises excellent issues about compliance in international politics. It also challenges constructivist notions of human rights change (i.e. Risse, Ropp, Sikkinnk) which sees treaties as an early stage of normative change.

I posted the blog entry though, mainly for it's teaching value. Can't wait to hear how my Intro to IR students respond next fall.

North Korean Human Rights II: UN Human Rights Inquiry

Calling for an "international inquiry" into North Korean human rights abuses, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stepped up pressure on the international community to address deplorable conditions and practices in North Korea. For years, the UN Human Rights Council has assigned a special rapporteur to North Korea, but Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner seems to be ramping up efforts herself. Here's a post from HRNK on how the UN has dealt with NK human rights the past few years and why the inquiry is significant.

The U.S. has already expressed support for the inquiry. However, there was much more suspense to whether South Korea would agree to the inquiry given that the new president had pledged to improve North-South relations. Addressing human rights  at the start of her tenure would surely not be well-received by Pyeongyang, jeopardizing the opportunity to improve relations. However, not supporting the investigation would weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the UN investigation.

However, South Korea decided to support the inquiry yesterday. This is a good decision. Why turn a blind eye to North Korean human rights abuses when it clearly exists? There's no guarantee that the North will follow-up on negotiations even if Seoul defers its support.  Also, there's no reason to write off the possibility of engaging the North, even as Seoul acknowledges human rights abuses. At least Seoul would be on higher moral ground if the Park government makes an initial gesture to provide aid and the North rejected it because of South Korea's support for the UN inquiry.

Update #1: Roberta Cohen weighs in on events leading to the adoption resolution to hold a  UN commission of inquiry into abuses in North Korea.

Update #2: Steph Haggard also discusses the UN Commission of Inquiry and tags documentation. He notes  four advantages of moving ahead with the inquiry.

First, we found it interesting that the North Koreans felt compelled to respond, even if they claimed that the resolution was not worthy of response. Somewhere, someone in North Korea is reading a statement by the Foreign Ministry saying that North Korea does not have a human rights problem. As cynicism rises, such statements are rightly interpreted as implying the opposite. .

Second, the commission will galvanize organizations working on the issue, and give their activities a boost, including with respect to refugees.

Third, the action has diplomatic effect. Its hard for the DPRK to say that a resolution passed with Venezuelan support is a cabal of the imperialists; North Korea is increasingly identified with other states and conflicts with commissions of inquiry, such as Syria or Darfur.

Finally, if we are going to have international crimes as we now do under the Rome Statute it is important that allegations of them be investigated and treated with the seriousness they deserve. Building international law is a function of practice, and commissions of inquiry can contribute to that practice.

In other news: Dennis Rodman meets Kim Jong-Un on basketball diplomacy. Crazy PR stunt or an updated version of ping-pong diplomacy? NPR has a good story on this.

North Korean Human Rights: Naming and Shaming

A while back, there was an exchange between John Feffer and Roberta Cohen on North Korean human rights. John argued that naming-and-shaming are ineffective, if not counter-productive and instead argued for a human security approach to human rights (i.e. provide aid and development assistance). I later weighed in on the politics between these two camps.

I thought about John's point again on whether naming-and-shaming actually works on North Korea. Roberta mentioned that they did sign the UN Treaty on Human Rights as a sign of progress; this might be stage two of Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink's five-stage spiral model on human rights change. I was reminded though, thanks to a post on the Duck, that there actually is academic literature on the effectiveness of naming-and-shaming strategies. Amanda Murdie and Dylan Davis ran a quantitative analysis on this using some creative (in a good way) methods to measure shaming and human rights change. Cullen Hendrix and Wendy Wong also have a forthcoming article in BJPS.

The verdict: Yes, naming-and-shaming do have a qualified/conditional impact. Translation: naming-shaming has to be done under certain conditions (i.e. they're effective on autocratic but not democratic regimes) and in conjunction with some other factors (i.e. when domestic NGOs are present are INGOs are also weighing in). For North Korea then, human rights activism may have at least a weak effect on the regime: there are no domestic NGOs or civil society to support transnational activists, but there is pressure from the UN and North Korea is autocratic.

Garment Factory Ablaze in Bangladesh: The Conundrum of Improving Workers' Rights

This story on the garment factory fire in Bangladesh is just terrible and tragic. I’m usually ambivalent when it comes to labor activism and unions. But this story screams out the need for greater accountability and better protection for workers. The young man who desperately called his mother from a 5^th floor bathroom to tell her he was about to die as the building burned was particularly heart-wrenching. In many ways, it echoes the travesty in Chinese factories producing Apple ipads reported earlier this year.  

As in the Apple case though, improving labor standards is not so easy when existing economic structures and business pressures pose obstacles for reform. Consumers want lower prices. Suppliers must offer competitive bids. Factories must yield high output.  Laborers are desperate for work. Companies must meet consumer demand. 

Boycotting Sears and Wal-mart is probably not the way to go (see this link for reasons why). But like the case between Apple and Foxcon, exposing labor human rights violations in factories and linking them back to retailers may put pressure on firms, suppliers, and factories to address labor rights. Garment workers have also taken matters into their own hands and mobilized protests in Bangladesh 

The real challenge is altering the behavior incentives of consumers and producers. Many consumers in the developed world might be willing to pay a few dollars if they knew it translated into saved lives in Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, or Honduras. But the garment (electronics, toy...take your pick) industry would have to collude with one another and self-reinforce labor standards to prevent any one firm from producing goods at a significantly lower cost.  I’m not sure how many Americans are more likely to buy things labeled as “fair-trade” or “sweatshop-free” if they can find similar products at lower cost.

It’s easy to see why Karl Marx inspired generations of revolutionaries and activists. But it’s just as easy to see why he was wrong about overthrowing the structure we curse and embrace and call capitalism.

Update #1: Following the collapse of factory killing hundreds of workers, an activist from Bangladesh calls on Americans to press companies to improve standards, but does NOT endorse a boycott.

Update #2 (5/12/13): Looks like retailers like H&M (my wife's latest go to store) have decided to sign an accord which adheres to safety measures. As this article states," The move comes just days shy of a deadline imposed by workers’ rights groups that said they would hold street protests and otherwise increase pressure on clothing brands that did not sign the agreement by Wednesday." So were retailers pressured into signing? Is this a logic of consequence or appropriateness, or does that even matter?

Wal-Mart, however, has opted out of the safety plan and instead announced it would conduct their own set of inspections in factories. Perhaps Wal-Mart found the plan too restrictive??

Here's an op-ed from the Post's Harold Meyerson with more on this issue.

Update #3 (7/13/13): The spate of tragedies has led North American retailers to launch there own worker safety initiative in Bangladesh. Are such measures of corporate social responsibility really a sign of changing norms and practices, or is it a way to deflect outside criticism that American retailers are part of the problem and not the solution. As the Post points out, one weakness is the self-regulatory nature of this initiative. The Economist has a more skeptical take.

Update #4 (12/28/15): Two years after the Rana Plaza incident, slow progress on labor reforms and politics between European and N. American corporate alliances in establishing mechanisms for inspections and monitoring of factory conditions as reported by the Post.

The Brits and Transnational Activism on North Korean Human Rights

One of my activist friends posted a set of articles this morning (as he does every morning) on North Korean human rights (NKHR). I've been focusing primarily on U.S. or South Korean activism and NKHR but it's good to be reminded that the push for NKHR is a transnational phenomena. Raising awareness in the UK, British Parliamentarians have spoken out against human rights abuses in North Korea. Interestingly, it appears that conservative members take the lead in NKHR like their counterparts in the US Congress.

To what extent is human rights and humanitarian aid politicized under the backdrop of ongoing security problems. This is a question a former student and I are currently investigating in North Korea and Iran. Leaders are driven by principled beliefs - but how do they interact with strategic beliefs and how does this lead to politicization?

Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt

Just read Michael Barnett's article "Evolution without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt." Here are few reactions, and some insights for my own research.

Barnett’s theoretical claim is the adaptation of evolutionary theory to social science (in this case the evolution of ethics and humanitarian organizations). Institutions and humanitarian groups have evolved over time – taking on larger roles and responsibilities, becoming more relevant in IR. Evolution, however, may not have actually led to progress. The political environment forced agencies to adapt. “The combination of environmental mechanisms and organizational culture led many humanitarian agencies to adapt to their environment in ways that incorporated politics…Actors respond to a world of change…there are strong pressures to conform to their environment” (624). Barnett goes on to conclude “There are many examples of the possibility of the practical ethics of aid agencies becoming politicized, mainstreamed, and tamed as a consequence of external pressures” (656). However, there is the fear that these NGOs may actually be reproducing and expanding the very world order (one dominated by politics, directed by powerful states) that they claim to resist. The environment “can have a pronounced impact on the principles of principled actors and enmesh them into the very world orders that they want to resist and transform” (626).

What’s striking here is the overwhelming emphasis of structure in Barnett’s argument. Barnett admits that the environment does not determine everything, and that actors have choices. But the choices are bounded within the limitations of the environment. Should there be more room for agency. I found his overviews for CARE and World Vision more plausible than MSF and UNHCR (i'm still puzzled why he uses an IGO for the "accomodationist" category).

Barnett’s piece in IO has given me different ideas about my (failed) grant proposal on “The Politicization of North Korea.” Empirically, he raises many of the same issues and questions that I do regarding human rights and humanitarian aid agencies. How do altruistic groups become wrapped in politics? Barnett provides a theoretical hook grounded in evolutionary theory to answer this question. Due to the nature of the grant proposal, I wrote a very policy-specific to North Korea. To turn it into a working paper, I could, however, follow Barnett’s example and formulate a general theory explaining/describing how human rights rights and humanitarian aid organizations operate within a given political environment, using North Korea as one case (Burma, Congo, Iran are other possible examples).

Democracy Promotion and Human Rights Under Obama

A couple articles in the post related to a possible shift in the Administrationa's position on human rights. The first article by Joshua Kurlantzick of CFR is somewhat critical, arguing that in his desire to distance himself from the Bush Administration, Obama has downgraded the role of democracy and human rights.

The second is a speech by Hillary Clinton at Georgetown, which seems to suggest the Administration's giving democracy and human rights more attention.

Perhaps Obama feels he's created enough distance and legitimacy to now comfortably address the topic of human rights and democracy.

Hard and Human Security: North Korea and Iran?

I met my former dissertation adviser at a conference in Baltimore earlier this month, and shared with him my research ideas related to North Korea. He was OK about the use of network analysis, but troubled by a study focusing on just one country. He sees a fixation on one country as a bad career move. Instead, I should make NK one case of a larger theoretical problem. Iran immediately popped to mind.

Iran and NK are both nuclear proliferaters with dubious human rights practices where the US focuses almost exclusively on the former and treads lightly on the latter. However, Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has made a pointed case that supporting democracy (i.e. the opposition) and human rights (those arrested or beaten after the June election unrest) can result in both moral and tactical benefits.

But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral. The Post writes:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

Hmmm...we could ask this same question about trust in signing an agreement w/Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately, in NK there is no visible opposition to work with. We only have the regime to work with. However, as with all governments, hard-liners and moderates do exist within the regime. If there's a way to identify and sway moderates, and perhaps open the country to the outside, could a more credible nuclear deal be struck?

Liberals and Human Rights

Intuitively, one would assume that "liberals" would take a stronger stand on human rights than conservatives. The demand for civil liberties, transparency, and basic freedoms are all issues liberals would naturally demand. Yet human rights have become the agenda of conservatives. When did human rights and the demand for liberal values abroad become the issue of conservatives (i.e. the rise of the neocons)? Are Democrats wary of pushing the human rights button, evoking the "freedom" rhetoric which rings so close to the Bush agenda.

We see the delicate balance Obama faces with Iran. Obama should provide the Iranian opposition moral support and denounce the use of violence to quash protestors. Yet he's been careful not to denounce Ahmadinejad, or make comments which would further incite the opposition, or suggest the illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (and by extension grounds for regime change). And from a "realist" perspective, Obama will likely be negotiating with Ahmadinejad's government on future nuclear policy. Thus he's exercising caution now with his words so as to not undermine future prospects of diplomacy or engagement with Ahmadinejad.
therefore is exercising caution. Glenn Kessler below gets at some of these points

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703850.html


But this digression still doesn't get at the heart of my question about the position of political liberals (i.e. Democrats on human rights). More salient for my research is figuring out what the liberal position is on human rights in North Korea. My tentative answer is that they have no position. Liberals have been largely silent on human rights in N.Korea. The agenda has been dominated by conservatives and evangelical Christians. I think there is a "moderate" position here, which I would fall under. Focus on providing humanitarian aid. Denounce the lack of political, eocnomic, and religious freedom in N.Korea, but w/out openly promoting regime overthrow (even if this is desirable). Perhaps there is a way to silently promote regime change, by pulling internal levels, providing humanitarian assistance, and working with local officials to institute market reforms.

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