Regime Watch: Beijing

In a recent post, I wondered which U.S. presidential candidate would be better on supporting democratic Taiwan over the communists in Beijing and gave a slight edge to Senator McCain (though both candidates appear to support a continuation of the ridiculous “one China” policy).

As a part of America’s acquiesence to Beijing’s false claim of sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, there are travel restrictions on Taiwanese officials to the U.S. and bans on direct communications between U.S. government officials and their counterparts in Taiwan. So would President Obama put an end to these restrictions?

From the Formosan Association for Public Affairs comes this tidbit from Senator Obama’s comments on Taiwan’s March 2008 presidential election:

The United States should respond to Ma Ying-jeou’s election by rebuilding a relationship of trust and support for Taiwan’s democracy. The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials.

Does Senator Obama mean it?

Back in October 2007, U.S. Senator Tim Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 48 (S.CON.RES.48) a resolution which:

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) restrictions on U.S. visits by high-level elected and appointed officials of Taiwan, including the President of Taiwan, should be lifted; (2) the United States should allow direct Cabinet level exchanges in order to strengthen a policy dialogue with Taiwan; and (3) it is in the U.S. national interest to strengthen links with the democratically-elected government of Taiwan and demonstrate stronger support for democracy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president, and lack the force of law. Rather they are intended, among other things, to express the sentiments of the U.S. Congress in a formal way towards a particular issue.

Yet missing for the very short list of co-sponsors for the resolution is Senator Barack Obama (to be fair, Senator McCain’s name is also absent from the list).

The resolution was sent to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs for consideration in October 2007, and that was the end of Congressional action on the resolution thus far. Among the members of the foreign affairs committee is U.S. Senator Barack Obama. As a side note, the chairman of the committee is U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, who is now Senator Obama’s vice presidential running mate.

Point is that months before Senator Obama stated that the U.S. “should reopen blocked channels of communications with Taiwan officials” he had an opportunity to co-sponsor and help push through the foreign affairs committee a resolution advocating for just such a re-opening of communication with Taiwan.

Of course, President Obama could make the sentiment of S.CON.RES.48 a reality by simply ordering the U.S. State Department to begin direct communcation with the Taiwanese…but would he?

For now, the pro-Taiwan edge still goes to McCain.

“Both Ways” Beijing is at it again. The regime recently echoed a longstanding Chinese theme that nations should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. This is, of course, hogwash. Beijing is more than willing to use its significant clout to affect the internal affairs of other countries when it suits the regime, especially when it comes to China’s efforts at marginalizing Taiwan internationally.

In a recent speech in Thailand, just before heading off to the Olympics in Beijing, U.S. President Bush tweaked China over its human rights record, including the detention of political dissidents, human rights and religious activists and other human rights abuses by Beijing.

In response, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman tweaked right back at Mr. Bush:

“We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.”

Really?

In 2007, my Independence Institute collegue Dave Kopel and I wrote about Costa Rica dropping diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to enter into a stronger economic and diplomatic relations with China:

In June, Costa Rica ended nearly sixty years of diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to establish diplomatic relations with China. Not only a victory in Beijing’s efforts to smother Taiwan’s independence, the Costa Rican switch is further evidence of China’s growing influence in Latin America—a growing threat to democracy and to U.S. interests.

Announcing the diplomatic switch, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias cited a desire to strengthen commercial ties and “attract investment” from China. Arias then thanked Taiwan for its “solidarity and co-operation” over the last sixty years, noting that Taiwan has been “very generous.”

But the next day, Arias denounced Taiwan for being “stingy.” Sounding as though he had taken emergency talking points from Beijing, Arias grumbled, “Considering the few friends they have, they don’t treat them very well.” Arias continued, “Without a doubt, we will get more help from China.”

So if Beijing actually believes that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another, why would Costa Rica have to end its relationship with Taiwan in order to “get more help from China?”

As Kopel and I continue:

China insists that the price of trade relations is the severance of diplomatic relations with independent Taiwan. A 2005 Heritage Foundation report warned that “China has launched a major diplomatic offensive in Central America and the Caribbean to stamp out Taiwan’s diplomatic legitimacy in the region and supplant Taiwan’s influence among these young democracies with its own.” The report observed that China has been “translating its economic success -and its search for resources to fuel its economic growth—into greater influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

So perhaps the U.S. should go ahead and call Beijing on its bluster about not interfering in other countries’ affairs by re-entering into formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and maybe even throw in a trade deal with Taiwan. Then when Beijing throws its predictable temper tantrum, the U.S. can gently remind the regime that other countries (China) should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations (in this case, foreign policy decisions by the U.S.).

Nick Cohen from The Observer ( a British newspaper) reminds us that China is still a communist regime, and thus Beijing’s claims of a “green” Olympics needs to be viewed through the prism of authoritarian propaganda honed to a fine skill through years of practice…he also notes that Beijing has found some useful idiots from the West to help prop up the  illusion:

The Communist party of China has beautified Beijing for the Olympics. The Organising Committee for the games has ordered one million cars from the road and told factories to shut down, so foreigners will believe that one of the most polluted cities on earth can hold ‘the green Olympics’.

The president of the Olympic Committee gabbled his appreciation. Jacques Rogge, a sports’ bureaucrat who appears to have learnt nothing from the 20th century, lauded China’s ‘extraordinary’ efforts. The statistics proved the authorities had done everything that ‘was humanely possible’, and the statistics never lie.

Greenpeace, so harsh on democratic countries, was as excessive in its praise. After registering a few reservations, it declared the dictatorship’s work was ‘tremendous’ and ‘positively unique’. Beijing was providing ‘important lessons to other Chinese cities’.

The eyebrows of Jonathan Fenby, who has just published The Penguin History of Modern China, shot up at that. When the games are over, the factories will reopen, he said. The Olympics will have secured a few long-term benefits - more homes and workplaces will burn gas rather than coal - but when set against China’s vast pollution problem these gains will be tiny.

Cohen then reminds us why it is such useful idiots are so easy to come by (and always have been for communist regimes):

The gullible admire dictatorships because they think the great leader and his politburo can cut through objections and force the recalcitrant to obey orders, and we have had no shortage of fantasies about the better China that would come if only the party embraced greenery.

In The River Runs Black, a book every environmentalist needs to read, Elizabeth C Economy points out that the fantasies can never be realised. Even if the centre wanted to change policy, its writ does not run in the provinces. Local officials are in the pocket of or related to factory owners and ignore inconvenient decrees. If the courts, the press or doctors in local hospitals complain, they silence them. Change is impossible without democratic reform - which is as far away as ever.

The editorial board of my hometown newspaper, the Denver Post, have taken both Beijing and its toadies at the International Olympic Committee to task for falling short on promises made…the money excerpt:

The Chinese desperately want the $40 billion games to be lauded as a success — a showcase for athletes reaching superlative heights against the backdrop of a perfect city.

Unfortunately, the early reports paint a far from perfect picture.

Instead of human rights improvements, the situation has worsened. Even as Beijing publicized the establishment of “protest zones,” dissidents were detained or jailed. So-called troublemakers have been denied entry to the country. In Beijing, taxi cabs are wired for eavesdropping. And Tibet, which has long clashed with Chinese authorities, remains closed to the outside world.

Furthermore, journalists in Beijing to cover the games have reported their Internet access is being filtered, with some websites being blocked.

Inexplicably, the IOC appears impotent in applying pressure on the Chinese to keep their promises. That is, if the IOC is even trying.

In the face of growing concern by athletes over air quality, the IOC’s chief medical commissioner said Tuesday that the Beijing air looks like pea soup because of its “humidity.” What?

The U.S. Olympic Committee seems to be taking its cues from the IOC. When four members of the U.S. cycling team got off a plane in China wearing air masks distributed by the USOC, their actions were questioned by USOC officials. USOC CEO Jim Scherr reportedly said the cyclists were “overly cautious.” The cyclists ended up making a public apology to the Chinese.

The events leave us wondering why the great effort to soothe the Chinese ego?

Nice! The folks at the Post don’t seem quite as timid as the New York Times editorial board, who have acted genuinely surprised that a communist regime is granted the Olympics, and then continues to act like a communist regime.

Prior to the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, I posted about why President Bush should not attend the games, such as this argument from the Heritage Foundation. But as long as Mr. Bush is in Beijing, here is an excerpt from a compelling and witty argument by Nick Gillespie at Reason Magazine (disclosure: Nick has been good enough to publish my work in the past) as to why Bush attending the Olympics is a good thing:

But the most interesting performance of this games may have already taken place a couple of days ago, starting in Thailand of all places. That’s when President George W. Bush actually sounded presidential for a change and made an unambiguous statement about human rights and China:

“We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential….We press for openness and justice, not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs….

“The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings.”

A Chinese spokesman responded with a courteous screw-you: “We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.” At the opening of the new U.S. embassy in China, Bush reiterated his theme of freedom and engagement: “We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful.”

If you care about civil liberties, foreign policy, government spending, expansions in executive power, Social Security reform, traditional African dancing, or you name it, Bush’s presidency has been the sort of ongoing disaster-cum-embarrassment that the baseball team he used to own, the Texas Rangers, faces on an annual basis. And there is plenty to criticize in terms of Bush’s current appearance in China. Not his going to the opening ceremonies of the Games in the first place, but his failure to meet openly with Chinese dissidents or directly address a nation-wide audience in China.

Despite the high-flying rhetoric of athletic competition, the modern Olympics, restarted in 1896, were conceived of as a political act—a way for the French to avenge on the playing field their battlefield defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (it’s one reason why participants compete as part of national teams rather than as individuals). True to this origin, the Olympics have always provided a stage for world politics, both official and unofficial, well-intentioned and murderous. Hence the grotesque displays of Nazism in 1936, the student protests in ‘68, the terrorist atrocities of ‘72, Eric Rudolph’s bombings in ‘96, and various boycotts, such as President Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal of the United States team from the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter’s boycott, done in the name of human rights, accomplished absolutely nothing. I’m willing to say that Bush is a worse president than Carter (who at least deregulated airline ticket pricing and interstate trucking, and invited Willie Nelson to the White House), but it’s Bush who has gotten it right when it comes to superpower-charged Olympics.

To have Bush out there, saying what he’s saying where he’s saying it—and pursuing a larger policy of engagement via trade and other forms of exchange—is absolutely the best way to pull China into something approaching Western-style democracy, complete with robust individual rights and the sort of economy that will ultimately force governments to loosen up. Milton Friedman famously said that as people get richer, they demand the ability to live however they want—that economic freedom, which increases prosperity, helps create the conditions for political freedom. It seems clear that the Chinese government, like all governments, doesn’t want to yield power if it can avoid doing so. It’s also clear that the more a country trades with the world—for goods, services, and even cultural identities—the less its government can control its people. Here’s hoping that the Beijing Olympics, regardless of the predictable and bizarre repressions going on right now to ensure a “stain-free” event, push that process along.