Blind Dissident Challenges the Strategic Vision of the US in China
Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 2 May 2012
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
(Brazil) on 2 May 2012
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
Translated from
by Jane Dorwart.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The story of dissident Chinese Chen Guangcheng is one of heartache, but now it is a tremendous headache for President Obama, as this business of human rights is upsetting negotiations between the United States and China. Chen embodies the true courage of hope, but from the two countries’ perspective, he chose the worst possible time for a heroic gesture.
The 40-year-old dissident, blind and a self-taught lawyer, has been campaigning indefatigably against forced abortions and sterilizations. He is in the front line in the resistance against the one-child policy in a one-party country. Chen is also a champion for the interests of the disabled and battles in general against abuse, arbitrary judgment and corruption, especially in his province of Shandong, in the east of the country. To the supreme humiliation of the ever-watchful regime, the blind dissident managed to escape from house arrest this past week, near the city of Lynyi, and took refuge in the American embassy in Beijing.
The incident of the blind dissident came to be seen by the eyes of the world (he appeared in a YouTube Video after the great escape, with a direct appeal to Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to respect the laws and end corruption) just days before the scheduled visit and arrival in Beijing of a weighty U.S. delegation, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, for another round of strategic and economic discussions.
On Thursday, hours before the meetings’ formal commencement, Chen left the embassy under some kind of diplomatic arrangement, in the company of the American ambassador Gary Locke, and went to the hospital to receive medical treatment. On their side, the Chinese authorities protested and demanded an apology from Washington as part of the diplomatic theatrics. First reports are that the Americans received Chinese guarantees that Chen may have a free life in the country, without having to be exiled. More problems could arise with this agreement, especially if the dissident makes good use of his supposed liberty. Let us see. (As of 11:30 New York time, there is confirmation in the convoluted news releases concerning this saga that, according to the most recent information about him, Chen would, in truth, be reluctant to stay in the country and would be leaving the American embassy due to threats his family had received.)
The fact that Chen fled from house arrest, created a fait accompli which Obama did his best to hide. In his campaign for reelection Obama cannot look like a bozo. Republicans, such as Mitt Romney, are having a field day with the dilemma of what to do with the dissident, with warnings that the president should not bow to the Chinese (I would be curious to see how Romney would act in a tight spot like this, if he were to come to power).
Washington needs Beijing in a complicated relationship of cooperation and competition, whether it be on questions of economy, geopolitics or crises such as Iran, Syria and North Korea. There had already been a tortuous transition of power in China at the end of the year, much less smooth than had been projected, as was proved in the defenestration of the rising star Bo Xilai. And now the hard line could test its strength with regards to concessions to the Americans in the case of the dissidents.
Chen is also a hard-liner. He never wanted to leave for exile, which in principle would be a convenient solution to this crisis. Outside the country, his impact would be drained. For this reason, Chen wants to be free in China, with guarantees that there would be no repeat of the record of abuses against himself and his family. Even with restrictions, his role could be significant, as was the case with activist artist Ai Weiwei.
In an ideal world, the more reformist sectors in China could use this trouble to gain points, showing the world that emergent China is, in fact, a country more mature, capable of living with dissidents and addressing a culture of abuse. In an ideal world, Obama would show more courage and, instead of shoving human rights under the table, would say to the Chinese that realism and pragmatism should guide the relations between the two superpowers in the 21st century, but that principles cannot be treated like cheap merchandise, "Made in China."
The drama is that it becomes harder each time to reconcile pragmatism and principles. China is an increasingly more important country and hopes to be treated with respect, at the same time disrespecting citizens like Chen. It does not like to be at the receiving end of moral lessons and hates these interferences in its internal affairs, especially when it is feeling more confident and less cornered. Ironically it was Clinton who, when taking office, stated that " …our pressing on those [human rights] issues can't interfere" in other vital matters in U.S.-China relations. This is the traditional realistic position, advocated by the warlock diplomat Henry Kissinger, since the two countries normalized their relationship some 40 years ago.
The order of the day in Washington (whether it be Democrat or Republican) is to treat problems in the style of Chen's as discreetly as possible. Clearly each political party is acting with opportunism and creates constraints when the other is in the White House. At the same time, if a new American strategy, as Obama claims, is consolidated with the dominant powers in the Asia-Pacific region, including military forces in the region to neutralize Chinese advances, it needs to offer an attractive model of political and economic liberties, and not just pragmatism bordering on cynicism.
Are there political, economic and strategic risks with this challenge to the Chinese model of business as usual and their condemnation of people like Chen? Clearly there is, but it is equally dangerous to try to maintain a modus vivendi with the Chinese, when the indigenous population is becoming increasingly dynamic and restless. Just look at the incredible activity of the microblogs reflecting on the matter, in spite of official censorship. Other situations like Chen's will appear. Pardon the pun, but there is no use in pretending to be blind.
The 40-year-old dissident, blind and a self-taught lawyer, has been campaigning indefatigably against forced abortions and sterilizations. He is in the front line in the resistance against the one-child policy in a one-party country. Chen is also a champion for the interests of the disabled and battles in general against abuse, arbitrary judgment and corruption, especially in his province of Shandong, in the east of the country. To the supreme humiliation of the ever-watchful regime, the blind dissident managed to escape from house arrest this past week, near the city of Lynyi, and took refuge in the American embassy in Beijing.
The incident of the blind dissident came to be seen by the eyes of the world (he appeared in a YouTube Video after the great escape, with a direct appeal to Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to respect the laws and end corruption) just days before the scheduled visit and arrival in Beijing of a weighty U.S. delegation, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, for another round of strategic and economic discussions.
On Thursday, hours before the meetings’ formal commencement, Chen left the embassy under some kind of diplomatic arrangement, in the company of the American ambassador Gary Locke, and went to the hospital to receive medical treatment. On their side, the Chinese authorities protested and demanded an apology from Washington as part of the diplomatic theatrics. First reports are that the Americans received Chinese guarantees that Chen may have a free life in the country, without having to be exiled. More problems could arise with this agreement, especially if the dissident makes good use of his supposed liberty. Let us see. (As of 11:30 New York time, there is confirmation in the convoluted news releases concerning this saga that, according to the most recent information about him, Chen would, in truth, be reluctant to stay in the country and would be leaving the American embassy due to threats his family had received.)
The fact that Chen fled from house arrest, created a fait accompli which Obama did his best to hide. In his campaign for reelection Obama cannot look like a bozo. Republicans, such as Mitt Romney, are having a field day with the dilemma of what to do with the dissident, with warnings that the president should not bow to the Chinese (I would be curious to see how Romney would act in a tight spot like this, if he were to come to power).
Washington needs Beijing in a complicated relationship of cooperation and competition, whether it be on questions of economy, geopolitics or crises such as Iran, Syria and North Korea. There had already been a tortuous transition of power in China at the end of the year, much less smooth than had been projected, as was proved in the defenestration of the rising star Bo Xilai. And now the hard line could test its strength with regards to concessions to the Americans in the case of the dissidents.
Chen is also a hard-liner. He never wanted to leave for exile, which in principle would be a convenient solution to this crisis. Outside the country, his impact would be drained. For this reason, Chen wants to be free in China, with guarantees that there would be no repeat of the record of abuses against himself and his family. Even with restrictions, his role could be significant, as was the case with activist artist Ai Weiwei.
In an ideal world, the more reformist sectors in China could use this trouble to gain points, showing the world that emergent China is, in fact, a country more mature, capable of living with dissidents and addressing a culture of abuse. In an ideal world, Obama would show more courage and, instead of shoving human rights under the table, would say to the Chinese that realism and pragmatism should guide the relations between the two superpowers in the 21st century, but that principles cannot be treated like cheap merchandise, "Made in China."
The drama is that it becomes harder each time to reconcile pragmatism and principles. China is an increasingly more important country and hopes to be treated with respect, at the same time disrespecting citizens like Chen. It does not like to be at the receiving end of moral lessons and hates these interferences in its internal affairs, especially when it is feeling more confident and less cornered. Ironically it was Clinton who, when taking office, stated that " …our pressing on those [human rights] issues can't interfere" in other vital matters in U.S.-China relations. This is the traditional realistic position, advocated by the warlock diplomat Henry Kissinger, since the two countries normalized their relationship some 40 years ago.
The order of the day in Washington (whether it be Democrat or Republican) is to treat problems in the style of Chen's as discreetly as possible. Clearly each political party is acting with opportunism and creates constraints when the other is in the White House. At the same time, if a new American strategy, as Obama claims, is consolidated with the dominant powers in the Asia-Pacific region, including military forces in the region to neutralize Chinese advances, it needs to offer an attractive model of political and economic liberties, and not just pragmatism bordering on cynicism.
Are there political, economic and strategic risks with this challenge to the Chinese model of business as usual and their condemnation of people like Chen? Clearly there is, but it is equally dangerous to try to maintain a modus vivendi with the Chinese, when the indigenous population is becoming increasingly dynamic and restless. Just look at the incredible activity of the microblogs reflecting on the matter, in spite of official censorship. Other situations like Chen's will appear. Pardon the pun, but there is no use in pretending to be blind.