Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Beyond the dominion of dollars
In President Obama's meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao this week, should discussion of human rights and religious freedom be on par with economic and environmental issues, or should human rights and religious freedom be secondary matters?
Primary, secondary, I would be overjoyed if the United States and China addressed human rights and religious freedom in any serious, frank, constructive, manner, no matter what the order was. We keep getting platitudes, excuses, and statements indicating that representatives "broached" various nebulous issues, but I don't see much real movement.
We live in a world where nations are cowed from openly welcoming and honoring the 14th Dalai Lama for fear of angering or damaging relations with the economic power. When Barack Obama met with the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet last year, he was accused of "instigating a potentially destructive downward spiral in relations," that he should instead focus on "real priorities." Today, we are so fiscally enmeshed with China (a bipartisan effort, it should be noted) that religious freedoms usually only gets a polite nod now and then, as those "real priorities" get discussed.
Our current situation makes me think of that famous scene from Paddy Chayefsky's "Network," in which Arthur Jensen explains his "corporate cosmology" where world peace and harmony will be achieved in "one vast and ecumenical holding company." We are told that China will gradually improve on issues of human rights and religious freedoms as the world's economies grow closer together, but recent data doesn't seem to back this assertion up. Our economy is so dependent on continued good relations with China, that I doubt any president, from any party, will rock the boat any time soon in the name of the Dalai Lama, dissident Christian groups, or any other faith that displeases that nation's government. If America is the world's policeman, it's a cop on the make willing to look the other way in the name of profit. We are in a situation where there is virtually zero real pressure on China to change its policies regarding human rights and religious freedom.
I am concerned about the future of religious freedom in China. Not only because I think Tibet was done a great injustice, one that should be corrected, but because I care deeply about the millions of polytheists and pantheists who call that land home. Taoists, followers of various indigenous and imported folk religions, and syncretic mixes of all of the above lay claim to the hearts and minds of tens, possibly hundreds, of millions. Currently, China's government sees the social value of encouraging (well-regulated) official manifestations of these faiths, but a new regressive turn isn't impossible. Should Taoism, or various folk practices, be seen as an impediment to social and political order, their future could be imperiled. We can't gloss that over with a down-played "concern," quickly moving on to something else, human rights and religious freedom should be at the top of the diplomatic agenda for a country that says it values those freedoms above all else.
We should not only make religious and human rights a real priority in dealing with China, but we should walk our own talk as well. We should strive ever-harder to make sure religious minorities are treated fairly, and fully included in our society. We should treat our indigenous peoples and tribal nations with dignity, and respect the spirit of the many treaties we have made with them. We should stop foot-dragging on extending basic legal rights to our gay, lesbian, and transgendered citizens, we should stop passing regressive laws against illegal immigrants that do nothing but further dehumanize them within our society, and we should ensure that the rule of law is applied fairly to everyone within our power. We should do these things not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it would give us more moral authority to speak on these issues to China, or any other country we condemn for violating human rights and religious freedom. I don't say this to build some sort of false equivalence between our lapses and China's, but to recognize that the closer we live to our ideals, the more likely it is China, and the world, will listen.
Despite the impediments and problems, I think progress with China can be made. I think the Chinese people hold massive potential for the world's future, and that a more honest and expansive relationship is possible with the United States so long as we cast away the encrusted cynicism that has placed trade deals above the people who drive the engines of our economies.
By
Jason Pitzl-Waters
|
January 19, 2011; 1:00 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' |
Next: John Paul II and the suffering body
Posted by: Calexico | January 24, 2011 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Cecil, Waters didn't actually *say* America is or should be 'the world's policeman,'... he said, 'if,' referring to that well-known characterization (Which is originally and commonly used by way of pointing out that we're *not,* as such, actually.)
Posted by: APaganplace | January 22, 2011 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cecilg said : What makes Waters think that America has the power or the influence or the right to pass itself off as "the world's policeman".
Not so much Waters, but rather our past..."aid", which would lead most observers to the conclusion that we (USA) had attempted to become a type of "global policeman." Somolia, Bosnia, etc. There are several cases where America didn't have much interest but was almost expected to step in and fix it because we were the biggest Bad on the block.
Also, as someone from AL, I agree with you completely. I do not like my new Gov., or his half-hearted "I'm sorry you were offended" apology.
Posted by: VisionFromAfar | January 21, 2011 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jason Pitzi-Waters: Two comments, one negative the other somewhat positive.
Waters said: If America is the world's policeman, it's a cop on the make willing to look the other way in the name of profit.
What makes Waters think that America has the power or the influence or the right to pass itself off as "the world's policeman". America is a powerful country, but it can't even "police" places like North Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, Sudan, --and the list goes on. America is in many ways a wonderful place, but it have no power over China-- not even if our so called allies all jumped on our band wagon. We always wind up mostly alone on the policing projects.
Second, and more positive: Waters said, "We should not only make religious and human rights a real priority in dealing with China, but we should walk our own talk as well." The reality is that there is no way for America to force our notions of democracy or human rights on China, but we could do something about our own shortcomings. Wasn't it a guy named Jesus who said "Take the beam out of your own eye first."?
We might start by trying to straighten out the new govenor of Alabama.
Posted by: cecilg | January 20, 2011 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pitzl-Waters: "We should stop foot-dragging on extending basic legal rights to our gay, lesbian, and transgendered citizens, we should stop passing regressive laws against illegal immigrants that do nothing but further dehumanize them within our society, and we should ensure that the rule of law is applied fairly to everyone within our power."
Reply: Good luck attempting to accomplish these basic human rights issues in Arizona where civil and thoughtful dialogue are unknown concepts to the political majority. Hint: Remember the name, Russell Pearce.