Terry has produced a wonderful book. We can debate his decision to include some people and not others. Many many people had a personal hand in developing the bilateral relationship through both formal and informal mechanisms. The key point is that only through broader and deeper engagement can we build better understanding and deeper trust. The U.S. needs China and China needs the U.S. The future of world peace and stability will be tied closely to the future course of U.S.-China relations. I’m really looking forward to the next volume. Thanks Terry for further opening up our thinking about the strategic value of better relations between our two countries.
Interesting that Americans then were so easily “horrified” by perceived human rights abuses in China. What might they think of the human rights abuses going on in Palestine and the American role in legitimising those abuses? What do they think of the human rights of indigenous Americans and all the people living under US sanctions in Cuba, Venezuela etc?
Easy to be horrified at human rights if they are done by others, but remain blind and oblivious to human rights that their own government perpetuates and genocide suffered by indigenous Americans.
This is a very fair point, and one I take seriously. Americans are in no place to lecture the rest of the world about human rights unless they are doing something about their own government's violations internationally. It's one of the reasons I like working for The Carter Center. Peace Not Apartheid is probably President Carter's most famous book, and the Center stands by it (especially our teams focused on the Middle East) with clear eyes about where who all the players are.
We published an interview with Jake Werner a few weeks ago in which he talks about the hypocrisy of the US government on human rights if you want to check it out.
It’s certainly true there has been a lot of demonstrations in US campuses against the horrific genocide in Gaza, but nothing comes of it? Why? The so called “democratic” political system in the US (and Britain) gives the electorate no choice. It’s Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally committed to the Israeli regime. Both Conservatives and Labour are equally committed to the Israeli regime. Both sides of the political divide dance to the same tune. There is no democracy.
It was not always like this. But if you don’t watch out, the West is fast becoming the true authoritarian repressive anti-democratic and illiberal regimes of the world. The evil empire is not Russia or China. It is the Anglo-American regime, and “liberals” are part of the problem.
In an ideal world, we should be able to criticise failures in the US and China alike. But there is an asymmetry in the world that makes this difficult … which is that the West sees fit to intervene in the non-Western world whereas China and most of the non-Western world are not so hypocritical as to intervene in the affairs of other countries.
People who (even with best intentions) criticise failures in non-Western societies inadvertently participate in manufacturing consent for future invasions and CIA/NED destabilisation operations (eg in Georgia, Romania etc).
Just think about this … why doesn’t the EU never hold Israel and the US to account for human right failures? There is a real problem of hypocrisy and asymmetry in the world that makes it very difficult to talk about failures in China without inadvertently excusing illegitimate interventions by the US.
People who want to criticise China need to be clear that there is much more evidence of human right abuses, authoritarianism, Orwellian propaganda in the West than there is in China. The US, Canada and Australia have yet to reckon with their genocide of indigenous peoples, and they want to talk about genocide in Xinjiang? How much more hypocrisy can one get?
What's clever about your position in these two responses is that you criticize the U.S. for offering no real internal political alternative but then use a lesser of two evils argument for why we shouldn't criticize China's actions in the world. It's a good way to hide that on an international scale, China does not offer a real alternative either.
An enormously important way the U.S. has traditionally supported authoritarianism abroad is through aid and favorable economic policies to authoritarian governments. When China does the exact same thing, you call it non-interference. Friend, it is interference. Then there's China's actions in places like Myanmar (new piece on this by David Brenner on Saturday), which are just straight up, regular U.S.-style military dictatorship backing. Bog standard imperialist practice.
I'd encourage you not to let nationalism blind your critical eye.
Terry has produced a wonderful book. We can debate his decision to include some people and not others. Many many people had a personal hand in developing the bilateral relationship through both formal and informal mechanisms. The key point is that only through broader and deeper engagement can we build better understanding and deeper trust. The U.S. needs China and China needs the U.S. The future of world peace and stability will be tied closely to the future course of U.S.-China relations. I’m really looking forward to the next volume. Thanks Terry for further opening up our thinking about the strategic value of better relations between our two countries.
Interesting that Americans then were so easily “horrified” by perceived human rights abuses in China. What might they think of the human rights abuses going on in Palestine and the American role in legitimising those abuses? What do they think of the human rights of indigenous Americans and all the people living under US sanctions in Cuba, Venezuela etc?
Easy to be horrified at human rights if they are done by others, but remain blind and oblivious to human rights that their own government perpetuates and genocide suffered by indigenous Americans.
Why can’t we have more impartiality in the world?
This is a very fair point, and one I take seriously. Americans are in no place to lecture the rest of the world about human rights unless they are doing something about their own government's violations internationally. It's one of the reasons I like working for The Carter Center. Peace Not Apartheid is probably President Carter's most famous book, and the Center stands by it (especially our teams focused on the Middle East) with clear eyes about where who all the players are.
We published an interview with Jake Werner a few weeks ago in which he talks about the hypocrisy of the US government on human rights if you want to check it out.
https://uscnpm.substack.com/p/a-progressive-china-policy-w-jake-842
It’s certainly true there has been a lot of demonstrations in US campuses against the horrific genocide in Gaza, but nothing comes of it? Why? The so called “democratic” political system in the US (and Britain) gives the electorate no choice. It’s Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally committed to the Israeli regime. Both Conservatives and Labour are equally committed to the Israeli regime. Both sides of the political divide dance to the same tune. There is no democracy.
It was not always like this. But if you don’t watch out, the West is fast becoming the true authoritarian repressive anti-democratic and illiberal regimes of the world. The evil empire is not Russia or China. It is the Anglo-American regime, and “liberals” are part of the problem.
In an ideal world, we should be able to criticise failures in the US and China alike. But there is an asymmetry in the world that makes this difficult … which is that the West sees fit to intervene in the non-Western world whereas China and most of the non-Western world are not so hypocritical as to intervene in the affairs of other countries.
People who (even with best intentions) criticise failures in non-Western societies inadvertently participate in manufacturing consent for future invasions and CIA/NED destabilisation operations (eg in Georgia, Romania etc).
Just think about this … why doesn’t the EU never hold Israel and the US to account for human right failures? There is a real problem of hypocrisy and asymmetry in the world that makes it very difficult to talk about failures in China without inadvertently excusing illegitimate interventions by the US.
People who want to criticise China need to be clear that there is much more evidence of human right abuses, authoritarianism, Orwellian propaganda in the West than there is in China. The US, Canada and Australia have yet to reckon with their genocide of indigenous peoples, and they want to talk about genocide in Xinjiang? How much more hypocrisy can one get?
What's clever about your position in these two responses is that you criticize the U.S. for offering no real internal political alternative but then use a lesser of two evils argument for why we shouldn't criticize China's actions in the world. It's a good way to hide that on an international scale, China does not offer a real alternative either.
An enormously important way the U.S. has traditionally supported authoritarianism abroad is through aid and favorable economic policies to authoritarian governments. When China does the exact same thing, you call it non-interference. Friend, it is interference. Then there's China's actions in places like Myanmar (new piece on this by David Brenner on Saturday), which are just straight up, regular U.S.-style military dictatorship backing. Bog standard imperialist practice.
I'd encourage you not to let nationalism blind your critical eye.