Obama Approach to Diplomacy Faces Test in China

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: May 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — When Hillary Rodham Clinton made her first trip to China in 2009, barely a month into her tenure as secretary of state, she said that American concerns about human rights should not interfere with other pressing global issues on which the United States and China could find common ground. Human rights advocates were appalled, and under orders from the White House, Mrs. Clinton softened her remarks the next day.

Enlarge This Image

Haraz N. Ghanbari/Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s trip to Beijing may be upstaged by a human rights controversy.

Related

• Unease Mounting, China and U.S. to Open Military Talks (May 2, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

But her candid admission reflected the cold calculation that continues to shape President Obama’s foreign policy when it comes to championing rights and freedoms abroad. Quiet diplomacy and compromise, administration officials argue, are sometimes more effective, if less satisfying morally, than thunderous public condemnation.

The administration’s strategy, already under fire from critics on the left and the right, now faces its most public test as Mrs. Clinton arrives again in Beijing for talks that are certain to receive far less attention than the uncertain fate of a Chinese lawyer, Chen Guangcheng, who escaped a brutalizing, illegal house arrest and has sought protection from American diplomats in the Chinese capital.

“This is a remarkable and possibly unprecedented opportunity for the United States to express sympathy and support for someone who is a folk hero now in China,” said Sophie Richardson, the China director for Human Rights Watch.

She noted the administration’s refrain, repeated Monday by Mr. Obama, that the United States welcomed China’s growing prosperity and global influence, and added, “This is the moment to stand up and say we welcome the rise of China and the work of people like Chen Guangcheng.”

Administration officials have so far opted for a different approach, refusing even to acknowledge Mr. Chen’s case or the fact that he appears to be in the protective safety of American diplomats, though Mrs. Clinton has raised his mistreatment in the past. That has renewed criticism that the White House has soft-pedaled the question of human rights when it comes to China or other repressive countries whenever expedience dictates it.

Mr. Obama’s aides dispute that, pointing to numerous statements by the president and Mrs. Clinton and, most recently, to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s toast at a State Department luncheon in February with China’s vice president and presumed leader-to-be, Xi Jinping.

“We have been clear about our concern over the areas in which from our perspective conditions in China have deteriorated and about the plight of several very prominent individuals,” Mr. Biden said as a chill permeated an otherwise sociable event.

For Mr. Obama, though, it is a question of tone and emphasis. Every president, to some degree, has championed human rights around the world. For the last 35 years the United States has produced an annual report on individual nations that have adhered to basic freedoms; the 36th is to be released this month. And yet each president during that time has also been reproached for ignoring abuses committed by countries whose security or economic importance mattered more to American national interest.

Ronald Reagan promoted political freedom behind the Iron Curtain but did so far less vigorously in Latin America. (He also negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union, whose abuses he denounced relentlessly.)

George W. Bush advocated a “Freedom Agenda” but faced the same accusations as Mr. Obama when it came to pushing Egypt, Russia or China — and endured accusations of hypocrisy for America’s own actions in Iraq and on Guantánamo. No president has ever really taken Saudi Arabia to task as one of the world’s most repressive societies, where religions other than Islam are banned, women cannot drive and no one can vote.

A senior official argued that the Obama administration had advanced the argument beyond the bully pulpit by, for example, rejoining the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, once derided as a den of hypocrisy because some of the worst violators sat on it. With the United States at the table, and Iran being voted out, the council has issued condemnations of abuses in Syria and Iran, and ejected Libya when Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cracked down on protests.

“It would be a mistake to judge any administration’s record on what the slogan is,” the official said, arguing that the White House and State Department promote human rights in many forums and aspects beyond public statements. Mr. Obama, the official said, “is looking for the tools that are going to work.”

Using human rights as a pillar of foreign policy inevitably exposes the chasm between the high ideal of American values (“It comports with our principles,” Mr. Obama said on Monday) and the hardheaded pragmatism of advancing American business and security interests.

In the case of Bahrain, to cite another example, the administration has spoken out far less forcefully about the harsh crackdown on popular unrest than about similar activity in other countries, in part because of its strategic importance as host to the Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch’s Washington director, recently returned from Bahrain and praised the administration’s quiet efforts to force the government there to seek a peaceful solution.

“The problem is that few people in Bahrain and the broader region know this, because administration officials have not spoken publicly about Bahrain with consistent passion and clarity,” he wrote in an e-mail.

No country is more vexing on human rights than China, whose economic transformation has made it an essential partner of the United States but which remains profoundly repressive.

“Every administration since Nixon has had the same balance between security and human rights in China,” said Jeffrey A. Bader of the Brookings Institution, who was Mr. Obama’s senior adviser on Asia until April 2011. “We have to stand for the rights of dissidents who are pursuing their goals peacefully, but that doesn’t mean that that’s what’s at the core of America’s objectives in this relationship.”

Despite her rough start in China, Mrs. Clinton has received accolades for making the case that respect for basic rights is essential for any country to develop and prosper since they demand rule of law and civil society. In February 2011, she delivered a scathing critique of China’s abuses that mentioned Mr. Chen.

Another time, she argued that “we must be pragmatic and agile” in dealing with China on human rights. “In every instance,” she said, “our aim will be to make a difference, not prove a point.”

The resolution of Mr. Chen’s fate, whether during her visit or later, will now test that strategy. 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplomacy-faces-test-in-china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all