The Belgravia Dispatch: Another Casualty of Detainee Policies: Diminished Standing to Pressure China

January 30, 2007

Another Casualty of Detainee Policies: Diminished Standing to Pressure China

The militarisation of space is only the latest area in which an increasingly assertive China has taken advantage of the typical US approach to critical issues of global importance since the end of the cold war. The US is so protective of its sovereignty and complacent about its power that it often refuses to adhere to accepted international norms or contemplate an international regime that might constrain its room for manoeuvre.
There are at least three areas in which China is happy to ride on America's coat-tails and the first is human rights. Until the US began detaining people without trial at Guantánamo Bay five years ago, it was possible for US politicians, without hypocrisy, to criticise Chinese Communist leaders for jailing their political opponents. The US could exert real influence on Chinese behaviour. Exchanges of presidential visits between the two countries were in those days preceded by the ritual release of Chinese dissidents into US care; today such visits are more likely to be marked by the ritual purchase of Boeing aircraft as part of China's efforts to reduce the US trade deficit.

Chinese officials are not shy to point out Washington's selective approach to human rights. They do not see why resource-hungry China should not support dictatorships in Burma and Zimbabwe if the US does the same in Pakistan, central Asia and west Africa. Nor is there any obvious reason why China should not use its United Nations Security Council veto to protect allies such as Sudan from sanctions when the US does the same for its protégés, including Israel.

The second issue is economic nationalism. China, along with several other Asian nations, is rightly accused of using dubious stratagems - including peculiar product standards and health and safety scares - to protect its domestic market from foreign competitors. Yet whenever this issue is raised, China has only to recall a two-year-old dispute that still rankles with Chinese officials: CNOOC, the state-controlled oil group, was stopped from buying Unocal, the US oil company, on spurious national security grounds.

Third is the environment. True, air pollution from China has been detected on the US side of the Pacific and Chinese industrialisation threatens the global environment. But why should China take action when the US, still the world's biggest contributor to global warming, has refused to adopt the Kyoto protocol on climate change and has barely begun to take the matter seriously?

Notwithstanding Mr Bush's call for lower US petrol consumption in his state of the nation address on Tuesday, fuel economy standards for new vehicles are more stringent in China than in the much wealthier US.

If China is to be held to account for its actions - whether in polluting the world, persecuting its dissidents, supporting dictators or disturbing the peace in space by blowing up satellites - the US must re-arm itself with credibility, moral conviction and a willingness to help craft and then submit to international law.

It staggers the mind what we've squandered by way of moral leadership these past years. And increasingly, it's having a very real impact in our relations with rising powers like China, as Mallet ably points out. Hank Paulson will doubtless do a superb job on the economic track with Beijing, but on issues like human rights, our standing to protest has diminished mightily in the eyes of much of the world community. That's what happens when the planet's leading democracy does things like legalize torture for certain categories of detainees in its captivity. It loses the moral high-ground, and thus its standing to convincingly protest the abuses of others goes into something of a free-fall.

Relatedly, it is astounding to me that a "Cully" Stimson (he of the profoundly cretinous statements about Gitmo counsel) is still managing detainee affairs for the Pentagon and, much more important, that Guantanamo remains open. Any intelligence that has been gathered there in the past pales in benefit to the massive costs to our international standing the existence of Guantanamo has inflicted on our nation (regardless with many of the detainees there now for years there is little to no fresh intelligence to be gained anymore). Meantime, the images of Muslim males being carted about in wheel-barrows amidst the razor-wire of the "tropics" (Cheney's memorable phrase) has doubtless proven one of the very best recruiting sergeants al-Qaeda has had at its disposal this past half-decade.

Guanatanamo must be 'phased-out', with detainees speedily tried (though improvements to the Potemkin justice likely to be meted out need to be urgently implemented), sent to home or third countries, etc, as soon as a new Administration comes into power (this reckless Administration seems incapable of it). Its continued existence remains an unmitigated disgrace, a propanganda boon to our enemies, and a grevious blight on our nation's history. In many ways, it will serve as a key symbol of the terrible judgments and blunders we've witnessed during the Bush years when historians look back to analyze this shameful period in our nation's history.

Posted by Gregory at January 30, 2007 06:20 AM

Comments

Offered with, gently, and with respect Greg........it is "astounding" to me that it is "astounding" to you that Stimson is still over at the DOD managing detainee affairs. This is, after all, who they are. And what they do. Stimson is not some loopy ideologue prone to putting his foot in his mouth, tolerated only because he is seen to represent some wing of the party. i.e James Watt

Stimson's mind set is the core of the mentality running the nation these days. We see the results daily.

Posted by: jonst at January 30, 2007 02:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Sorry, should have read, "offered gently...

Posted by: jonst at January 30, 2007 02:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

not sure I agree - morality is factor of power - America isn't so much diminished as a moral agent, such claims always being relative and dubious anyway, but more that it is diminished as a power and that change alters postures and portrayals. If Bush had actually found WMD in Iraq or had bothered with a phase IV plan - its actions would not necessarily be any more 'moral' but perception of its actions would obviously tend to be more indulgent. So, China is not exploiting America's fall as a moral standard, but rather its decline as a power to be feared and 'respected'.

Posted by: saintsimon at January 30, 2007 03:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

You focused on the detainee/human rights aspect of the article, but the closing paragraph is worth considering, too:

China is not the only nation to have taken advantage of the plight of the US since it became obsessed by Iraq and Islamic fundamentalism. Authoritarians everywhere - from Russia to Venezuela - have done the same...

I think the tendency was to count the Russians out as a global player, but their recent actions (ie. cutting off Western Europe's gas supply, delivering anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, and supporting the Iranian nuclear effort) have shown to what degree they can still exert influence. And I've yet to see any coherent American response to the re-emergence of the Latin American left.

Funny how quickly events catch up to you when you're stuck in a quagmire.

Posted by: Judah at January 30, 2007 04:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

China will continue to capitalize as the US gov't continues to violate our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon. America Deceived (book)
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.

Posted by: Ike at January 30, 2007 08:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

there is a grass-roots effort to restore habeas corpus. join the project at:

projecthamad.org

Posted by: david at January 30, 2007 11:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

greg,

with each and every post, you need to include an abject apology for your complicity in all that has followed.

YOUR support for this adventure, along with every american who supported it as the decision was made to go to war (including myself), is why we started this. virtually no war has ever gone according to "plan". including this one. even so, we still managed to eke out victory in a few. and that's all that matters. "eke" will do.

there are only two choices when it comes to war, win or lose. only one side will win, only one side will lose. if you don't support america to win, then you support our enemy to win. (the latter includes "benchmarks" emanating like a noxious gas from the senate)

your support helped start the war, and your support for our enemy will help lose it.

it's not just that we're stuck fighting a war that emboldens our enemies (include all of the above and more), but moreso the incredible american shrinking spine on display for the entire world to see.

ya think china respects/fears THAT? Russia? Iran? Venezuela? ya think they give a CRAP about our "moral high ground"?

it's a wonder you can even stand up straight on your soapbox anymore.

anytime you feel like pissing yourself about these issues while beating Bush about the head (and conveniently distancing yourself from them), look in the mirror.

(anyone on this blog who was against the war from the git-go, while I disagree with you on that, I can at least respect your intellectual consistency)

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 01:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

the fruit of defeat will be bitter indeed.

you will have your fill -- as will we all.

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 01:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

and guess what one of those fruits will be:

more war.

(perceived weakness has a way of attracting it)

only much bigger.

and much, much nastier.

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 01:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

Right, Neill. In order to win the overall world war against Megaterrorism (especially nuclear terrorism) -- which of course we really do have to win -- OF COURSE we have to completely win this one particular campaign in Iraq, because...er...

Anyway, Hitler was right when he said that to win WW II it was crucial NEVER to let the German Army escape from encirclement in Stalingrad, and Churchill was right when he said that winning WW II absolutely required not evacuating Britain's troops from Dunkirk, but instead having them fight it out with the Germans right there, to the last man. I really don't know what we'd do without your strategic genius to enlighten us on this site.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 31, 2007 03:23 AM | Permalink to this comment

I hope that Neill never gets put in a position of any power. Reaction to reality, rather than blindly marching off an obvious cliff, is a mark of anyone who wants to be a good leader.

Guess Neill's too young to remember the song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy." Now there was a man who didn't change his mind either.

Posted by: grumpy realist at January 31, 2007 05:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg has been doing variations on essentially the same post over and over for quite a while now, for very good reasons I'm sure. He does seem in this one to flirt with the idea that other countries do what they do primarily because they are reacting to the United States; Victor Mallet has gone way past the flirting stage, and has chosen as the scene for his assignation...China, perhaps the one country on earth least likely to make substantive changes in its foreign (let alone domestic) policy in response to the moral example set by other countries.

China arrests and imprisons people for saying politically inconvenient things; it would shoot people suspected of terrorism. China protects its companies from foreign competition because its government owns many of them and because it is desperate to maximize employment, fearing that to do otherwise would risk political turmoil. China has tolerated the vast increase in air and water pollution from its industry over the last 20 years for the same reason. China gets along well with the governments of Zimbabwe and Sudan because it wants access to these countries' resources, and because its own leaders came of age during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; human rights, especially for non-Chinese, are no more than an interesting abstraction to them. China used a ballistic missile to destroy one of its own satellites because, well, no one is quite sure about why it did that. Even the Chinese Foreign Ministry is stumped, which might pique the curiosity of someone interested in foreign affairs.

Not Mallet. And not Greg either, evidently, not with Cully Stimson and Guantanamo going on. As I say, very good reasons for this, no doubt.

Posted by: Zathras at January 31, 2007 05:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

bm, please don't show your dinosaur credentials again. it's a bit embarrassing.

I'm curious, how many wars can you beat an ignominious defeat from before you realize everyone but you knows that you're NOT a superpower?

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 05:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

ignominious retreat.

equals defeat.

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 05:21 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Even the Chinese Foreign Ministry is stumped, which might pique the curiosity of someone interested in foreign affairs."

Zathras -- out of curiosity, has the Chinese Foreign Ministry EVER been very candid about why or how their government arrives at a decision? My knowledge of Chinese history is extremely shallow, but hasn't transparency to outsiders been pretty close to the bottom of their traditional concerns for millennia?

Posted by: sglover at January 31, 2007 05:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

"China used a ballistic missile to destroy one of its own satellites because, well, no one is quite sure about why it did that."

uh......target practice.....in a new front of the next war?

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 06:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

“Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.”

George Washington

"Reaction to reality, rather than blindly marching off an obvious cliff, is a mark of anyone who wants to be a good leader. "

Grumpy Realist

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 06:22 AM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, if George Bush was serious about winning - the US would win. He's not. He's serious only about talking about winning - which he does incessantly and with the obvious frustration of a teenager who doesn't understand why everyone else isn't changing the world based on his deeply-felt and sincere impulses.

You're right (I know, I can't quite believe it either...) when you say that China doesn't care what any other country thinks about its actions but you're wrong (now things are back to normal) when you ignore the ramifications of this in the rest of the world. China is yanking America's leash and America looks stupid as a result.

I was opposed to the war from the beginning - but I'm not an American and it's nothing to me how many of your citizens die in a Rovian vanity project without end. It seemed to me that there was a lot of wishful thinking and projection going on in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. But like a lot of other people in the non-American West I took comfort from Colin Powell's presentation at the UN. "Bush might be a fool", we said, "but Powell's straight." Well, we know how that worked out. A lot of people who wouldn't have trusted Bush to tell the time accurately were grieviously disappointed in Powell. It's hard to remember now how incredibly respected he was.

As an outsider, my suggestion is: if you're going to win, then shut up about surges and just win. Send the bodies you need - double, triple, quadruple the current number there - and then win. Acknowledge the fact that Maliki's government is openly laughing at you - have you read the man's public comments in the last few weeks? - and either depose him or find a new way to persuade him.

If you're going to win, get serious about doing what's necessary to win or end the farce now and get out. Go back to Afganistan and stop the Taliban resurgance (which is another reason America is suffering in the world's opinion). I'd even go so far as to say that it might mean military incursions into Pakistan. I wouldn't be thrilled with it and you won't be doing the official government any favours but it would be consistent with ending the Taliban's hopes for taking back the country.

It's not the Democrats who are harming America's image in the world - it's the lack of seriousness with which Bush is pursuing the so-called "War on Terror". Get serious or get out. There really are no other options.

And the "surge" is not serious - it's a hiccup of forces for a short term PR impact.

A last bit of personal advise: Neill, buy a Shift Key. They're not that expense.

Posted by: DRS at January 31, 2007 11:56 AM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, and one last thing...

Capture Bin Laden already. It's way past time that he was brought in. If Bush leaves office with OBL still at large, he really have no bragging rights at all.

One of the great questions of the next century is going to be how the mightiest military and commercial country of its time (which means of all time) became so subservient to the whims of one 60-year-old adolescent and his small entourage. It really boggles the mind.

Posted by: DRS at January 31, 2007 12:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

"I'm curious, how many wars can you beat an ignominious defeat from before you realize everyone but you knows that you're NOT a superpower?"

Neill, everybody but you and a few deluded fools already knows we're not a superpower.

Posted by: J Thomas at January 31, 2007 12:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

GR,

to me, what we are currently dealing with in iraq is merely an embankment. if you propose withdrawal/retreat/surrender in any way, THAT is marching off an obvious cliff.

and our enemies are praying that we do just that.

Posted by: neill at January 31, 2007 03:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

to me, what we are currently dealing with in iraq is merely an embankment. if you propose withdrawal/retreat/surrender in any way, THAT is marching off an obvious cliff.

and our enemies are praying that we do just that.

....fucktardity

Posted by: tregen at January 31, 2007 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, everybody but you and a few deluded fools already knows we're not a superpower.

Please..... DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Posted by: sglover at January 31, 2007 04:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

To sglover's question upthread: it is not the candor of the Chinese Foreign Ministry that is in question, but the fact that it appears not to have been informed beforehand (or even afterward) about a PLA action that had serious and obvious ramifications for China's relations with other countries. That is unusual.

Posted by: Zathras at January 31, 2007 04:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras: Hope you are wrong about the Chinese Foreign Ministry being in the dark. Last thing needed right now is for the PLA to start taking actions on the own like the Japanese Army in Manchuria did in the 1930s.

Posted by: David All at January 31, 2007 05:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, but that's really what my question was getting at: How can we tell the difference between planned obfuscation, and internal confusion?

Posted by: sglover at January 31, 2007 06:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't know the answer to that. I suggest only that it's a pretty important question, probably more important than the future of Iraq. Or even Cully Stimson.

Posted by: Zathras at January 31, 2007 11:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

sg, then what are we relative to the rest of the world?

(remember to take into account massive aid around the globe, keeping shipping lanes clear around the world, sea and air tsunami and earthquake relief etc -- things no one else in the world has the wherewithal to do)

Posted by: neill at February 1, 2007 12:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

i get the distinct feeling zathras is underwhelmed by my 'cully'-blogging...

Posted by: greg djerejian at February 1, 2007 01:57 AM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks, Zarthas, for a bit of sanity. I come here less frequently (and with most blogs dealing with foreign policy, actually), because the "Cully Stimson" post is pretty much the norm, as fascinating as it is.

Posted by: Will Allen at February 1, 2007 02:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

"It's not the Democrats who are harming America's image in the world - it's the lack of seriousness with which Bush is pursuing the so-called "War on Terror". Get serious or get out. There really are no other options.

And the "surge" is not serious - it's a hiccup of forces for a short term PR impact.

A last bit of personal advise: Neill, buy a Shift Key. They're not that expense.

Oh, and one last thing...

Capture Bin Laden already. It's way past time that he was brought in. If Bush leaves office with OBL still at large, he really have no bragging rights at all.

drs,

unfortunately for the world, America is at this point a deeply schizophrenic country. it always has been -- that's its inherent nature -- but the advent of tv, and now the internet, has exacerbated the aspect of 'me' versus 'us' here to our, and the world's, detriment. as a result, American unity of purpose is ever more elusive.

I would love for us to have the unity of resolve that you yearn for.

I disagree as to the efficacy of the bumper-sticker term "surge".... let it play out. you, and the media, may be surprised.

and as to osama, the horse is already out of the barn. osama's the barn door, at this point. we have to be concerned with the horse.

the prime weapon of the enemy of the West is the demoralizing effect of our own media, which from the beginning has carried enemy propaganda on a regular basis, reducing our own will to fight the enemy -- or even be willing to acknowledge its true nature.

in its zeal to deride 'propaganda', which it invented, the Left has apparently forgotten its power.

not that he hasn't made mistakes (this being a WAR), but bush is not only trying his best to fight the enemy, but is hampered from doing so by his political enemies and their Media compadres.

Posted by: neill at February 1, 2007 05:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

So I see Neill's bought the party line, hook, line and sinker. Yeah, it's a WAR alright - an unnecessary and pointless war that we have to lose because we made such drastic mistakes at the beginning. With this logic, Neill would justify the war in Iraq because there are lots of terrorists there. Well yeah, there are - but they only began practicing terrorism in Iraq in response to our invasion and our inability to maintain security. A true party man: Yes, 'mistakes were made,' but by golly, Bush's heart was in the right place, and besides, liberals are bad and invented propaganda (didn't you know Goebbels was a lib'rul). Puh-leaze.

Posted by: richard at February 3, 2007 07:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

Lenin.

You don't understand our enemy. (I'm not referring to Bush)

Bone up on the jihadist ideology.

Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 01:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, if you honestly believe that this war is so important, please go fight it yourself. Do not respond, do not pass GO, simply go down to the military and sign up. Put your mouth where your money is. Just posting on blogs is just another mimicking of George W. Bush's grandious chest-puffing: a lot of sound and fury with nothing to back it up.

And that's why we will end up having to pull out of Iraq. Because not 1% of the blowhards who have been beating the war drums have the courage of their convictions. They all clamour for war--providing someone else fights it and someone else pays for it.

And that's why we're so cynical. You can accuse us of being "un-American", but we're not the ones who have dragged the US into this mess and then run from the conclusions. We're not the ones who are treating the troops as a collection of toy soldiers. You call for sacrifice, but I don't see you doing any of it yourself.

Posted by: grumpy realist at February 4, 2007 03:34 AM | Permalink to this comment