The Stace of the U.S. toward China

In recent weeks, I have been watching the oscillation of the United States’ stance toward China. When Clinton first visited the country, she publicly relayed that the United States would place the issue of the economic crises above all others; she spoke of the importance of China and the United States uniting to improve the economic situation. In doing this, she neglected to condemn—or even “slap the wrist” of—China of their numerous human rights violations. Then, shortly after her return, she signed off on the State Department Report that harshly criticized the human rights situation in China:

“The [Chinese] government continued to limit citizens' privacy rights and tightly controlled freedom of speech, the press (including the Internet), assembly, movement, and association. Authorities committed extrajudicial killings and torture, coerced confessions of prisoners, and used forced labor. In addition, the Chinese government increased detention and harassment of dissidents, petitioners, human rights defenders, and defense lawyers. Local and international NGOs continued to face intense scrutiny and restrictions. China's human rights record worsened in some areas, including severe cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tibet."

My concern is that it remains unclear what position this administration plans on taking in respect to human rights. From what we have seen thus far, many things could be concluded. In my opinion, it seems most likely that the stace the United States will take is one that is harsh, condemning human rights violations abroad, only when it is convenient for our own goals. This does not mean that the new administration is making the wrong choice; in fact, upon reflection, I do not know what the right choice should be.

On the one hand, I want the United States to place propagating human rights as a priority that does not come second to economics. I care about the Tibetans and Chinese that are being denied rights while other countries watch and do little to protect them. On the other hand, I know this is naive. I know that we are in the middle of serious times, and everyone’s top priority is moving forward. In times of drowning, values become second to staying above water. And in the end, I don’t know if that is okay or not. The United States would argue that we will only be able to effectively protect human rights when the economy returns to normal, so it is only logical that protecting the economy is our primary concern. Yet, no matter the reasons, it is rational to question if the administration truly understands the importance of human rights if anything is allowed to come before them.

Secondly, I have doubts about the United States playing a moral judge when we are violating many of the rights that we have condemned the Chinese for violating. This was the at the heart of the Chinese's response to our report—don’t criticize us for violating many of the same human rights you are. I have a great deal of sympathy for this reaction. In the end, I think the United States needs to decide how human rights will fit in the agenda during this crisis. Primarily, I hope we take China’s criticism to heart and terminate all of our human rights violations (for instance, closing our secret detention centers that deny people the right of habeas corpus and use torture and coercive techniques to gain information). Secondly, I hope we can find a way to support the termination of human rights violations abroad as we work to improve the economy.