rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 20, 2009 18:26:28 GMT -7
Hillary Clinton has now openly devalued human rights in China, and in my opinion, compromised our stance on human rights issues elsewhere. Nice start, gal  Activists 'shocked' at Clinton stance on China rights Reuters WASHINGTON (AFP) – Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China. Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet. "But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing. T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks. "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," he said. "But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China," he said. Students for a Free Tibet said Clinton's remarks sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time. "The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda," said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group. China has been pouring troops into the Himalayan territory ahead of next month's 50th anniversary of the uprising that sent Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama into exile in India. "Leaders really need to step up and pressure China. It's often easy to wonder whether pressure makes a difference. It may not make a difference in one day or one month, but it would be visible after some years," Dorjee said. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had sent a letter to Clinton before her maiden Asia visit urging her to raise human rights concerns with Chinese leaders. Before she left, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said human rights would be "an important issue" for Clinton and that she would "raise the issue when appropriate." China has greeted President Barack Obama's administration nervously, believing he would press Beijing harder on human rights and trade issues than former president George W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Feb 20, 2009 18:50:28 GMT -7
Human Rights as a tool for foreign policy never really gained headway under Carter - whom I think we can credit with starting this as a foreign policy priority.
Under Reagan it was used pretty effectively - remember The Pentecostals, and the writer in the USSR (drawing a blank but he wrote The Gulag Archipelago) and in other cases. The difference was people knew RR would use military muscle where as they all though Jimmy was all talk.
This statement is either a big step back for the US, or a sign of where the real priorities of the administration lie -
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 20, 2009 19:27:01 GMT -7
Well, I guess I can meet you half way in saying that I believe both Carter and Reagan blew it
and they even did so in some of the same areas of the world: Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador....
Carter's mess in Haiti, Reagan's mess w/the anti-communism rhetoric which empowered despots in South and Central America to continue killing those who opposed them...the soft touch we applied to South Africa's apartheid....
I don't think either president has a sterling record of having protected human rights and keep in mind that as the years pass, those looking backward do so with marked generosity
I don't think it's a step backward, rather it's continuing the previous administration's policy of looking the other way out of self interest, whilst couching it in terms designed to disguise the obvious: we do not care
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 20, 2009 19:42:05 GMT -7
Here's the reference, Snil...I remember the history, but can augment it: Claude, Richard P., Weston, Burns H. Human Rights in the World Community. ps 341-356
|
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Feb 20, 2009 23:01:21 GMT -7
Do you all know what the Prime Directive is?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 21, 2009 6:33:49 GMT -7
Do you all know what the Prime Directive is? as in "Star Trek", or in arguing for retrospect? Which one-these are the only two I know of.......  |
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Feb 21, 2009 18:08:39 GMT -7
Do you all know what the Prime Directive is? as in "Star Trek", or in arguing for retrospect? Which one-these are the only two I know of....... I meant the Star Trek version. Very good, Rosa. I'm impressed. I swear I was going to go somewhere with that and it sounded better in my head last night than it does today. I'm going to abandon that line of thought and just offer Rosa one of my special dark side cookies for getting the right answer.  |
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 21, 2009 19:25:21 GMT -7
why thanks, Web, but it's not really fair. I'm a fan, so I knew right away and now you have me all curious about what it was you were going to say. I guess I'll have to settle for the cookie. Wait a minute, what's IN the cookies, Web?  |
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Feb 22, 2009 1:08:09 GMT -7
why thanks, Web, but it's not really fair. I'm a fan, so I knew right away and now you have me all curious about what it was you were going to say. I guess I'll have to settle for the cookie. Wait a minute, what's IN the cookies, Web? Ohhh Rosa, you're a Star Trek fan? Classic Star Trek I hope? As far as the cookies, there's nothing in them that Michael Phelps wouldn't approve of. |
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Feb 23, 2009 4:16:43 GMT -7
yeah, I did see the classics, but actually, more a fan of the subsequent ones and the movies......couldn't ever really stand Kirk all that much although the movies (w/the "old crew") were great. My fave: The Wrath of Khan
mostly TNG, Voyager and DS9
|
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Oct 5, 2009 20:43:21 GMT -7
REVIEW & OUTLOOKOCTOBER 6, 2009 No Time for the Dalai Lama Obama is willing to anger China on tire tariffs but not on Tibet. In nearly nine months in office, President Obama has found time to meet with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Vladimir Putin. But this week he won't see the Dalai Lama, a peaceful religious leader who has long been a friend to the U.S. and an advocate of human rights for China's six million Tibetans. Mr. Obama's slight is the first time a sitting president will not meet with the Dalai Lama during a Washington visit since President George H.W. Bush met with him in 1991. No meeting was ever formally on the agenda for this week, but the exiled Tibetan's trip had been planned for years, and earlier this year he had expressed his hope to meet with the President. Last month, White House aide Valerie Jarrett and Maria Otero, undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, traveled to Dharamsala to confer with the Dalai Lama. The next day, the Dalai Lama's office announced that he hoped to meet with Mr. Obama only after November, when Mr. Obama will visit Beijing. As a White House official explained: "Both the Dalai Lama and we agree that a stable and positive U.S.-China relationship will help advance progress on the Tibet issue, and that a meeting after the President's trip would further the likelihood of making progress on Tibetan issues." In other words, not offending Chinese President Hu Jintao is a higher U.S. priority, at least on Tibet. By contrast, Mr. Obama was more than willing to risk offending China by imposing tariffs on Chinese tires last month to please his union supporters. This is of a piece with Mr. Obama's other human-rights backsteps, in particular his muted support for democracy in Iran. The Dalai Lama has met with the sitting U.S. President a dozen times, as well as with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle (including a certain Senator Obama in 2005). Although Beijing complained about these meetings, there were no serious costs to the U.S.-China relationship. George W. Bush met with the Dalai Lama in May of 2001, in advance of his first trip to China, and thereafter made clear that meetings with him were nonnegotiable. These Presidential meetings are important because they affirm the religious and democratic freedoms America stands for, while setting a global precedent. China routinely assails countries whose leaders meet with the Dalai Lama, targeting France and Germany in recent years by cutting off diplomatic exchanges, canceling conferences and the like. Perhaps the Administration is hoping for a return favor from Beijing for snubbing the man Chinese leaders label a "splittist" and a "wolf in sheep's clothing." But rewarding China's bullying only encourages such tactics. On Wednesday, the Dalai Lama will honor the late Julia Taft, who spoke out against Chinese abuses in Tibet as coordinator on Tibetan issues in the Clinton Administration. He'll also meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps he can wave at the White House on his way to Capitol Hill. It's becoming clear that Mr. Obama's definition of "engagement" leaves plenty of room to meet with dictators, but less for those who challenge them. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574449420327844600.html |
|
??