The Washington Post editorial page--which takes a hard line on Obama's pronounced realism--thinks so:
Mr. Obama didn't shrink from discussing democracy and human rights. He said "America will always speak out" for its "core principles," and nudged his Chinese audience to consider the advantages of free expression. But the president cast this fundamental difference between the United States and China as that one can be overcome by "cultivating spheres of cooperation." The notion that China would need to embrace democratic values in order to become a true American partner was missing from Mr. Obama's pitch. "My hope is that the United States and China together can help to create international norms that reduce conflict around the world," he said.
It's necessary and right that Mr. Obama pragmatically seek Chinese cooperation. But it's also important to remember that its government, which continues to suppress, sometimes brutally, freedom of expression, religious practice and minority rights, will never be much help in confronting other undemocratic regimes. Nor is it likely -- or even desirable -- that the United States and China will agree on new "international norms," since Beijing will not support any that flow from democratic principles. The United States has no choice but to recognize China's rise as a great power, and Mr. Obama may be right that a policy of containment would be counterproductive. But "welcome" a dictatorship to global influence? It's hard to see why that is a necessary or sensible stance for the U.S. president.
Print
COMMENTS (2)
This is chock full of errors, "Nor is it likely -- or even desirable -- that the United States and China will agree on new "international norms," since Beijing will not support any that flow from democratic principles." yes, but they will that flow from free trade principles, economic freedom is an essential pre-condition for Democratic ones. Beyond that, there are a host of international norms, such as willingness to do things to solve climate change, that have little to do with Democratic principles, unless one were to argue that greenhouse gases from Democracies are somehow purer.
Obama grew up in an Asian society, and has a Chinese brother-in-law, he understands the concept of face, that ... view full comment
This is chock full of errors, "Nor is it likely -- or even desirable -- that the United States and China will agree on new "international norms," since Beijing will not support any that flow from democratic principles." yes, but they will that flow from free trade principles, economic freedom is an essential pre-condition for Democratic ones. Beyond that, there are a host of international norms, such as willingness to do things to solve climate change, that have little to do with Democratic principles, unless one were to argue that greenhouse gases from Democracies are somehow purer.
Obama grew up in an Asian society, and has a Chinese brother-in-law, he understands the concept of face, that the only way to nudge China in the right direction (and nudge is all we really can do) is to not have them publicly lose face. Behind closed doors he would then have been able to argue Democratic principles more forcefully.
And the editorial treats the leadership of China as a monolithic bloc, nameless and faceless. There are many competing blocs there, some more liberal than others. Why strengthen the hands of the Conservatives?
What blackton said.
Also: "But "welcome" a dictatorship to global influence? It's hard to see why that is a necessary or sensible stance for the U.S. president.".
Where have these people been for the last 30 years? Money talks, and we've been sending increasing amounts of it to them for a very long time at this point. And their current form of government is hardly a recent occurance.
What blackton said.
Also: "But "welcome" a dictatorship to global influence? It's hard to see why that is a necessary or sensible stance for the U.S. president.".
Where have these people been for the last 30 years? Money talks, and we've been sending increasing amounts of it to them for a very long time at this point. And their current form of government is hardly a recent occurance.