Clinton in China: Chinese 'human rights can't interfere'

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Change you can believe in? Nah, same policy as the previous Administration.

link

Clinton: Chinese 'human rights can't interfere' with other crises

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the issue of human rights with Chinese leaders Saturday, but emphasized that the world economic and other crises are more pressing and immediate priorities.

"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," Clinton said in talks with China's foreign minister.

Clinton made China the last and most crucial stopover in her Asia trip, signaling the new administration's first attempts to lay a foundation toward a China policy. It is Clinton's first trip to China as secretary of state.

She met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on Saturday and discussed the framework for further high-level and mid-level discussions.

"It is essential that the United States and China have a positive, cooperative relationship," Clinton told a group of reporters.

Earlier Saturday, Clinton met with Chinese Premier Wen Jibao in Beijing, where they discussed what they regard as the new defining Sino-U.S. strategic goals: the world economic crisis, regional security and the environment.

The United States and China are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Human rights, a traditional topic in discussions between the two countries, was broached during Saturday's meeting between Clinton and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who agreed to engage on a continuous discussion on the issue.

Clinton said both nations will continue to hold frank discussions on crucial human rights issues, such as Tibet and freedom of expression in China. In the past, Clinton has been an outspoken, staunch critic of China's human rights stance.

In a welcoming response, Yang said China was willing to discuss the often-contentious subject of human rights.

"Although differences exist, China is willing to conduct the dialogues with the U.S. to push forward the human rights situation on the premise of mutual respect and noninterference in each other's internal affairs," Yang was quoted in the Chinese Xinhua news agency.

On the economic front, both leaders emphasized the importance of working in cooperation as their economies are intertwined.

China, the world's top holder of U.S. debt, wants to ensure liquidity and security in its dealings with the U.S. treasury bonds.

"We did use foreign exchange reserves to buy U.S. treasury bonds. Our principle of using reserves is to ensure security and liquidity," Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told reporters.

China-U.S. trade volume rose by 10.5 percent in 2008 to $333.7 billion, Xinhua reported.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is North Korea's largest trade partner. It has taken a leadership position in the six-party talks, a multinational diplomatic effort to denuclearize North Korea.

In Seoul, Clinton did not refrain form harsh words, restating the U.S. position toward North Korea.

"North Korea is not going to get a different relationship with the U.S. while insulting and refusing dialogue with the Republic of Korea," she said.

Mid-level military discussions will resume this month, Clinton announced Saturday. Last October, the Bush administration notified Congress of its plan to sell $6.5 billion in arms to Taiwan which caused China to suspend military talks with the US.

Clinton told CNN's Senior Correspondent Jill Dougherty that U.S. policy toward Taiwan will not change.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama are scheduled to meet at the G20 meeting in London in April.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Let them decide, they prefer to work in the cities apparently. They are free to return to their family owned farm land.

Also keep in mind every country has gone through an industrial revolution.

The western Industrial Revolution had the same horrors: Children working in factories 12 hours a day? Check. Children getting so tired they fall into machinery and die? Check. Grownups working 12 hours/day, 7 days/week? Check.

The thing about China is theirs is going to be over and done with in about 25 years for a total of 35; as opposed to hanging around for 75-100 and morphing into a second industrial revolution.

You forget to realize that even these conditions are far better than any Chinese would otherwise see. Running, clean water? Dependable food? Shelter to sleep in? They don't get that when they're farming 12 hours a day making barely enough food to survive on.

The other thing-- in the last 20 years, "extreme poverty" has shrunk from 40% globally to 20%*. That's not your humanitarian aid at work, that's American consumption fueling fewer deaths due to water poisoning, hunger, etc. in third world countries/regions. Why would you take that away from them? Until just recently (with the onset of this recession) Chinese were STILL taking trains to the cities to find a new life, new work, and new pay. That's in spite of all these "horrible work conditions" (by our standards, that we erroneously think nobody would want to work under) all over the place. They're welcome to quit their job and return to farming, but I think you miss how bad they have it farming.

This knowledge should cause us to stop and consider what we'd be doing before we start taxing trade with the Chinese. Now, I don't like that Hillary is saying "it doesn't matter" because it does; but the Chinese know they can't get away with this stuff forever, it's eventually going to come back to haunt them. There are over 200 protests per day across China. Mostly over corrupt government officials seizing land and selling it for a hefty profit to corporations. There are also several protests related to labor. A month or so ago one of them go into the news, 200 people at a bicycle factory laid off so they took their bicycles, laid them down across the road, and protested blocking all traffic. It's estimated for the government to maintain control they're going to need at least 8-10% growth each year until they can get some of these things sorted out. You see that happening? Nope. So there are going to be more riots, more protests, and they're going to be far too widespread for the Communist party to control. They're already being worked to the bone just holding the power they've got; they're getting dragged kicking and screaming into democracy. No, labor conditions will definitely be improving in the future as they move to more capital intensive, skilled forms of labor and the workers unionize. Just like Great Britain.

Game, set, match.

*Go check out "The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for Us All" by Robyn Meredith. She covers all sorts of things like this and provides sound sources to back them up-- IIRC, there were about 30 pages at the back of this book with nothing but footnotes/sources for statistics like this one.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
I don't know if you notice, but China appears to be slowly moving to a more freer, open society. When other nations, especially the US, criticize them in patronizing ways, the Chinese government and nationalists lash back and harden their attitudes. It might be better to just let them change at their own pace, of course calling out any egregious events or particular policies. The US hasn't exactly been perceived as a shining beacon of human rights lately either.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I don't know if you notice, but China appears to be slowly moving to a more freer, open society. When other nations, especially the US, criticize them in patronizing ways, the Chinese government and nationalists lash back and harden their attitudes. It might be better to just let them change at their own pace, of course calling out any egregious events or particular policies. The US hasn't exactly been perceived as a shining beacon of human rights lately either.

Wrong. Criticism works. The backlash is always instinctive and expected. But the long term effects of the criticism does wonders.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I don't know if you notice, but China appears to be slowly moving to a more freer, open society. When other nations, especially the US, criticize them in patronizing ways, the Chinese government and nationalists lash back and harden their attitudes. It might be better to just let them change at their own pace, of course calling out any egregious events or particular policies. The US hasn't exactly been perceived as a shining beacon of human rights lately either.

Wrong. Criticism works. The backlash is always instinctive and expected. But the long term effects of the criticism does wonders.

How so??
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I don't know if you notice, but China appears to be slowly moving to a more freer, open society. When other nations, especially the US, criticize them in patronizing ways, the Chinese government and nationalists lash back and harden their attitudes. It might be better to just let them change at their own pace, of course calling out any egregious events or particular policies. The US hasn't exactly been perceived as a shining beacon of human rights lately either.

Wrong. Criticism works. The backlash is always instinctive and expected. But the long term effects of the criticism does wonders.

How so??

We (used to?) have an annual human rights report and the Chinese were always sensitive to this. In fact, back in 2000 or 2001 they published their own human rights report on America. If the sensitivity isn't an acknowledgement of insecurities then color me blind. The truth is China aspires to be a first world nation. To get there it is going to have to come to terms with a pluralistic middle class and the myriad of ethnic groups that don't view the government as representative of them. A draconian security regime may keep these groups in check but it's only a matter of time before the Communist Party comes to terms with the economic advancements of the past 30 years. And, yes, that means more respect for the international declaration of human rights. But the economic pressure isn't enough. There must be political pressure within and without China. NGOs, supranational organizations, private organizations, and others, especially the United States of America, must keep up that pressure. After all, China is a part of the family of nations, right?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.

You're the one with the short memory. You only look at the past 6 years and come to that conclusion? Weren't you the same person that got so emotional over generalizations?
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.

Yeah tell the countless women (thousands) whose husbands were put to death, or had an arm/leg chopped off, because they pissed of Hussein.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.

Yeah tell the countless women (thousands) whose husbands were put to death, or had an arm/leg chopped off, because they pissed of Hussein.
Good reason for them to revolt but Americans in general didn't give a shit.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,173
14,603
146
Originally posted by: Dari
Change you can believe in? Nah, same policy as the previous Administration.

link

Clinton: Chinese 'human rights can't interfere' with other crises

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the issue of human rights with Chinese leaders Saturday, but emphasized that the world economic and other crises are more pressing and immediate priorities.

"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," Clinton said in talks with China's foreign minister.

Clinton made China the last and most crucial stopover in her Asia trip, signaling the new administration's first attempts to lay a foundation toward a China policy. It is Clinton's first trip to China as secretary of state.

She met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on Saturday and discussed the framework for further high-level and mid-level discussions.

"It is essential that the United States and China have a positive, cooperative relationship," Clinton told a group of reporters.

Earlier Saturday, Clinton met with Chinese Premier Wen Jibao in Beijing, where they discussed what they regard as the new defining Sino-U.S. strategic goals: the world economic crisis, regional security and the environment.

The United States and China are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Human rights, a traditional topic in discussions between the two countries, was broached during Saturday's meeting between Clinton and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who agreed to engage on a continuous discussion on the issue.

Clinton said both nations will continue to hold frank discussions on crucial human rights issues, such as Tibet and freedom of expression in China. In the past, Clinton has been an outspoken, staunch critic of China's human rights stance.

In a welcoming response, Yang said China was willing to discuss the often-contentious subject of human rights.

"Although differences exist, China is willing to conduct the dialogues with the U.S. to push forward the human rights situation on the premise of mutual respect and noninterference in each other's internal affairs," Yang was quoted in the Chinese Xinhua news agency.

On the economic front, both leaders emphasized the importance of working in cooperation as their economies are intertwined.

China, the world's top holder of U.S. debt, wants to ensure liquidity and security in its dealings with the U.S. treasury bonds.

"We did use foreign exchange reserves to buy U.S. treasury bonds. Our principle of using reserves is to ensure security and liquidity," Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told reporters.

China-U.S. trade volume rose by 10.5 percent in 2008 to $333.7 billion, Xinhua reported.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is North Korea's largest trade partner. It has taken a leadership position in the six-party talks, a multinational diplomatic effort to denuclearize North Korea.

In Seoul, Clinton did not refrain form harsh words, restating the U.S. position toward North Korea.

"North Korea is not going to get a different relationship with the U.S. while insulting and refusing dialogue with the Republic of Korea," she said.

Mid-level military discussions will resume this month, Clinton announced Saturday. Last October, the Bush administration notified Congress of its plan to sell $6.5 billion in arms to Taiwan which caused China to suspend military talks with the US.

Clinton told CNN's Senior Correspondent Jill Dougherty that U.S. policy toward Taiwan will not change.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama are scheduled to meet at the G20 meeting in London in April.




Where's your "insightful commentary that's required when posting stuff like this?



I don't see how anyone can be the least bit surprised at this. Ever since Richard Nixon sold out in 72, we've been kissing the Chinese ass.

Add to that the huge corporate investments in China and the Chinese investment in US debt, and we're still kissing Chinese ass.
Remember, "We the People" is just an ancient ideal...we're now governed by "We the Corporations."
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," Clinton said in talks with China's foreign minister.

Jeez, I can't believe she said that ^.

Scary that she thinks that way too.

Fern
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Fern
"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," Clinton said in talks with China's foreign minister.

Jeez, I can't believe she said that ^.

Scary that she thinks that way too.

Fern

The truth on these things will out like I said in my first reply in this thread, Clinton or not. Perhaps she sees this and is capitalizing on the opportunity for political cuddling. If this is her reasoning, do you fault her with that?

In my opinion human rights reform in China is inevitable, just like it was in the industrial revolution. The workers just don't have any bargaining power. Yet.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I'm disappointed in the Obama administration's lack of priority for human rights.

However - while I praise the Carter administration for making the issue a priority, the right can hardly condemn Obama without hypocrisy, as they've never credited Carter.

Also, this is part of the price that happens as the Republican policies have reduced the power of the US globally - our good values are less and less powerful too.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.

Yeah tell the countless women (thousands) whose husbands were put to death, or had an arm/leg chopped off, because they pissed of Hussein.

Now let's see you condemn the Reagan administration's policy for cozying up to Saddam because it was 'in our interest'. I'm all ears.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

Short memory? How about Iraq? When we fight its because of perceived national interest. Human rights is merely an excuse. China tortures and kills many people, a lot more than we have. China is about money. We'll support them now just like we have for decades. Money talks.

Yeah tell the countless women (thousands) whose husbands were put to death, or had an arm/leg chopped off, because they pissed of Hussein.

Now let's see you condemn the Reagan administration's policy for cozying up to Saddam because it was 'in our interest'. I'm all ears.

I'd direct you to the Afganis for that.

The truth is we do what we have to at the time; knowing it's going to lead to problems; but the extra pressure most definitely lead to the downfall of the USSR.
Look at history, compared to all the dictators, we are a teddybear. I'm not justifying our actions with that, but I'm trying to give it perspective. The world whines moans and groans over our every action no matter what we do; and then when their economy can't keep up with ours they come crying back to us asking for help.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,173
14,603
146
This country pays lip service to human rights in other countries when it serves our (corporate) interests to do so. Otherwise, we ignore the thousands or millions who are slaughtered or imprisoned because we only really care about the money.

Pointing at Iraq as an example of our human rights dedication is a laugh. The Bush administration was willing to use any excuse to go after Saddam Hussein...and did.

If we were so concerned about human rights, why don't we have standing armies in places like Darfur, Somalia, North Korea, China, and any of the myriad of other places where human life is cheaper than our morning coffee?
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
Originally posted by: BoomerD
This country pays lip service to human rights in other countries when it serves our (corporate) interests to do so. Otherwise, we ignore the thousands or millions who are slaughtered or imprisoned because we only really care about the money.

Pointing at Iraq as an example of our human rights dedication is a laugh. The Bush administration was willing to use any excuse to go after Saddam Hussein...and did.

If we were so concerned about human rights, why don't we have standing armies in places like Darfur, Somalia, North Korea, China, and any of the myriad of other places where human life is cheaper than our morning coffee?

I think we care a lot about human rights by not sending troops to those countries. Think of how many innocent lives would be lost if we decide to liberate North Korea.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,173
14,603
146
Originally posted by: Pocatello
Originally posted by: BoomerD
This country pays lip service to human rights in other countries when it serves our (corporate) interests to do so. Otherwise, we ignore the thousands or millions who are slaughtered or imprisoned because we only really care about the money.

Pointing at Iraq as an example of our human rights dedication is a laugh. The Bush administration was willing to use any excuse to go after Saddam Hussein...and did.

If we were so concerned about human rights, why don't we have standing armies in places like Darfur, Somalia, North Korea, China, and any of the myriad of other places where human life is cheaper than our morning coffee?

I think we care a lot about human rights by not sending troops to those countries. Think of how many innocent lives would be lost if we decide to liberate North Korea.

While I don't disagree with your statement, the same thing could (and should) be said about Iraq.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

He's absolutely right actually.

Look at the US history post WW2. Starting with the Nuremberg trials, that was pretty much victor's justice in 90% of the cases. Of those in the trials, only a very select few actually deserved their fate. We didn't even bother trying Japanese war criminals at all.

Moving forward to the 50s/60s/70s, we overthrew several governments, including the democracy of Iran. We installed ruthless dictators, such as the Shah and Pinochet. We helped men like Saddam root out dissidents and execute them. We encouraged Saddam to invade Iran after our bastard in power was overthrown, then sold him chemical weapons when the tide turned on him. Finally, we turned a blind eye to his abuses of his population as long as he kept the war on in Iran.

The US pays only minor lip service to human rights.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We never care about human rights except as a justification for war

Wrong.

He's absolutely right actually.

Look at the US history post WW2. Starting with the Nuremberg trials, that was pretty much victor's justice in 90% of the cases. Of those in the trials, only a very select few actually deserved their fate. We didn't even bother trying Japanese war criminals at all.

Moving forward to the 50s/60s/70s, we overthrew several governments, including the democracy of Iran. We installed ruthless dictators, such as the Shah and Pinochet. We helped men like Saddam root out dissidents and execute them. We encouraged Saddam to invade Iran after our bastard in power was overthrown, then sold him chemical weapons when the tide turned on him. Finally, we turned a blind eye to his abuses of his population as long as he kept the war on in Iran.

The US pays only minor lip service to human rights.

If you want to have selective memory then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that that statement is wrong.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Hell of a thing to be saying on record.

It's true, on a national scale human rights receive little attention in this country or any other. It's easy enough to send some money to Africa, but when entire villages are being gang raped and then killed it's just too much effort to float some ships alongside and start dropping marines in to affect a real change in it. Darfur, Somalia. Nobody ever pretended the costs were not major, but clearly the US is not willing to pay them. Like I said, few countries, if any really are. Countries always treat their citizenry as first-class and the rest of the world as less than first-class. Well, unless they are real sh*tholes like NK, where the citizens are nothing more than means to wealth for the very upper echelons.

If the US had finished NK when it had the chance the suffering likely couldn't have been much worse than those people face there every single day. They have so little as it is.