G'day all - guys, in a way, there are indeed differences. As a matter of personal opinion, prison labor is a minor issue, when it is contrasted with allegations of harvesting inmate organs. Prison is not a nice place to begin with. Recently, a tibetan monk [not a youngster] has published a book in which some of the torturing implements were illustrated. Of course, PRC doesn't have the monopoly of showing the dark side of human nature. My guess is that "Midnight Express" still happens all over the world, including the good o US of A. That said, IMHO, the justice-injustice ratio probably tilts in favor of the democratic countries with check-and-balance and accountability.
Going beyond the legitimacy of prison and its reform, I do think rhetoric can be a dangerous game. It may fire people up for the right cause; but it may also cause such an impasse that communication will become impossible. I agree that there is no perfect solution regarding the sino-american relationship. However, I'd like to go beyond the superficial chess match, tit-for-tat etc into something more deep rooted.
Both isolation and cooperation policies are useless if they are placed in a strait jacket. I mean, yes, PRC has become quite adept to play off one group of trading partners against another. In a way, it is very real. If LU, CSCO or even NT are not allowed to do deals with China, ALA, ERICY, NOK and Siemen etc are licking their chops. OTOH, the US can certainly exert her leverage. After all, the US is still the largest economy in the world.
Larry, I am not sure if encouraging dissident movement works on both pragmatic and nonprogmatic considerations. Pragmatically, the US simply doesn't have a good track record [not necessarily her fault.] If she couldn't even effect situations in countries like Latam and Middle East, what chance does it have with the PRC? Nonpragmatically, any active support [beyond just meeting HH the XIV Dalai Lama in the WH or on the Hill and other backchannel activities] could be construed as an act of war! This is a potential mine field.
Rather, there are many things the US can do. 1st, if she can throw Jonathan Polliard in jail, I don't see why she can do the same to others, Chinese included. I mean, sure, the thin skinned PRC may cry bloody murder, but crime and punishment are an acceptable risk. So, one should stop mixing politics with jurisprudence. Ok, throwing convicted spies in jail may not affect the PRC policies. Here is the long[er] range approach. Education. So long as the PRC can preside over a large [intellectual] underclass, she can continue to harnass the xenophobic power. Like it or not, I suspect there is a lot of support in China for the suppression of her minorities. I mean, one cannot possibily claim Hitler was the only person that caused the WWII tragedy in Germany without looking at all the underlying factors.
I am not talking only about China education, but also the US. The fact that more and more postgraduate candidates in the US are foreign born is indicative of something not quite right. No, I do not advocate the exclusive policy. Quite on the contrary, it is a testamony of the US university system. But this country, regardless of political affiliations, should do some soul searching. Why Johnny doesn't want to go to grad school?
But why is this important to the US relationship with China? It is b/c mediocrity cannot beget superior policy. Back in the 50s, when education is not as prevalent, it took exceptional people like Murrow to stand up against MacCathy [or Cohn, who was the smart one.] Education may not be able to buy moral integrity, but it surely helps.
Just my rambling 2c <SG>
best, Bosco |
