What Next? The Comfy Chair?
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama really lays into the Chinese over their refusal to let new Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo to travel to Oslo to collect his prize:
“I regret that Mr. Liu and his wife were denied the opportunity to attend the ceremony that Michelle and I attended last year,” he said. “The values he espouses are universal, his struggle is peaceful, and he should be released as soon as possible.”
That’s telling ’em.
This hard hitting condemnation was wrapped inside some saccharine, sick-making multi-culti blather:
“America respects the unique culture and traditions of different countries,” Obama said in a statement. “We respect China’s extraordinary accomplishment in lifting millions out of poverty, and believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want. But Mr. Liu reminds us that human dignity also depends upon the advance of democracy, open society, and the rule of law.”
Obama’s soft-peddling of and indifference to any human rights or freedom issue is quite embarrassing, and not limited to countries who have lifted people out of poverty (e.g., Iran, Venezuela). (He’s also shown complete indifference to human rights issues in Russia, e.g., Magnitsky). Perhaps it’s a diplomatic tactic, but perhaps too it’s a reflection of a worldview in which non-Western countries are viewed as different, and not subject to the same principles and standards as Western ones. That’s implicit in the “unique culture and traditions” blather, which sits uncomfortably when juxtaposed against the explicitly universalist rhetoric (“the values he espouses are universal”). So, like so much that Obama says, this dissolves into complete incoherence. (The mental gymnastics over the tax deal are yet further evidence of the administration’s incoherence.)
Obama’s oh-so-softly condemnation hasn’t stopped the Chinese from throwing a tantrum. Ironically, the hysterical reaction hardly conveys an image of strength. It suggests fear instead.
Obama’s pusillanimity is particularly embarrassing coming from a winner (albeit undeserving) of the Nobel Prize. It diminishes the stature of an award he received. But then again, there’s a lot of that going around these days.
Remind me again – what distinguishes you from the standard neocon? I mean what should have Obama said to China so that you wouldn’t call it soft-peddling. Threatened to nuke it?
The tax deal was of course a complete capitulation from the Appeaser in Chief (of the Republicans that is). And only got spat on for his efforts (DADT), as always happens when one tries to compromise with the GOP in good faith. But serves Obama right.
PS. Speaking of human rights abuses and restrictions on freedom of speech, the lack of mention of Wikileaks and Assange here is deafening.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 10, 2010 @ 11:28 am
It would be surprising for an individual such as Obama, who lacks any discernable set of core beliefs, to speak with passion on any particular subject. The statement he offered was a political calculation, not an expression of support for human rights.
Comment by Charles — December 10, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
That’s “soft-pedaling”. It refers to the “soft” pedal on the piano, which reduces volume, and the idiom is intended to draw a parallel with something that is or was downplayed. It’s a fairly common mistake.
Comment by Mark — December 10, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
The award never meant anything anyway. It’s up their with the literature award.
Comment by So? — December 10, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Whatever China’s human rights abuses are (and surely they are many and grave), do you really think Obama is the right person to scold them? Over 100.000 thousand civilians dead in Iraq. You can’t go flying around the world bombing the shit out of innocent people and criticize China for keeping dissidents in jails at the same time.
Comment by Anon. — December 11, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
After having waged a high-pressure campaign to enforce a boycott of the Oslo function on December 10 to honour in absentia Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese human rights activist who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee this year, Beijing is coming to terms with the reality that its campaign has not had the expected success and that its bullying tactics to enforce a boycott has failed except in Asia. Of the 65 countries with a diplomatic presence in Oslo, only 19 have so far agreed to join the boycott. The remaining 46 have reportedly informed the Nobel Committee that they will be attending the function.
Embarrassed by this, Beijing has been projecting its campaign as a success. It has claimed that over 100 countries have agreed to boycott the function. In reaching this number, it has apparently included countries with no diplomatic presence in Oslo, who have not been invited and who would not have attended anyhow.
Having held out threats of retaliation against countries which attend the function, the Chinese are now showing signs of lowering the rhetoric. In an article carried on December 10, the party-controlled “Global Times” has said: “Shi Yinhong, a researcher at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, said, “The 19 countries are making independent decisions on their own. It has done harm to the bilateral relations between China and Norway. But China’s expressing of discontent with Norway on this specific issue does not represent the long-term direction that China will adopt toward Norway,” Shi said.”
4. The Chinese were till now warning of an adverse impact on China’s relations with countries which attend the function. They are now practically “Not necessarily”. Despite the high-profile US interest in the function, the Chinese are going ahead with their plans to receive Mr. Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, in Beijing next month, thus terminating their suspension of military-military relations with the US in protest against the intended US sale of another consignment of military equipment to Taiwan.
B. Raman
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai and Associate, Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: [email protected]
Comment by Oleg — December 12, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
@ Anon.
The vast majority of the innocent dead in Iraq and Afghanistan have been/are being killed by terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups.
Also note that these groups, along with such lovely chaps as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, are supplied with the latest Russian RPG’s and other weapons, in the case of Hezbollah including SLSAM’s and intermediate range rockets.
Also note that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the coalition/NATO forces have around a 70% approval rating with the local public.
Of course, those actually in the combat zone tend to have a better idea of who their friends are than commentators who would happily sell them down the river.
Comment by Andrew — December 13, 2010 @ 1:22 am
The US foreign policy should continue to be base don the following three basic principles:
1. Our President must constantly harp on internal problems in foreign countries whom we view as our enemies or as the next targets for our invasions (in order to bring them peace and freedom).
2. We should continue to love and sell arms to our “civilized” allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
3. We should not tolerate when foreign leaders criticize USA
Some accuse USA of being “the world policeman”. That’s a very misleading view. USA is not only the World’s policeman, but also the World’s prosecutor, persecutor, judge, jury, prison guard, and executioner. And anybody who denies USA’s exclusivity, must be treated like a terrorist, just like Assange. America Uber Alles!
Comment by Ostap Bender — December 15, 2010 @ 4:41 am
Speaking of human rights and the freedom of speech, USA must shut up Wikileaks, the notorious British terrorist outlet. We should do to Britain what we did to Panama: send our troops into London, kill 2 thousand innocent civilians, and kidnap Assange and bring him to stand trial in Florida on the charges of treason, because this Australian man has betrayed USA and published truths that are inconvenient to the US government!
On a separate note, the Republicans should also arrest and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post for publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The members of the Supreme Court, who ruled in favor of NYTimes’ freedom of speech, should also be arrested for terrorism and persecuted to the full extend.
Anything short of that would betray our commitment to the freedom of speech.
We should teach everybody a lesson that USA in 20
Comment by Ostap Bender — December 15, 2010 @ 4:51 am
Speaking of human rights and the freedom of speech, USA must shut up Wikileaks, the notorious British terrorist outlet. We should do to Britain what we did to Panama: send our troops into London, kill 2 thousand innocent civilians, and kidnap Assange and bring him to stand trial in Florida on the charges of treason, because this Australian man has betrayed USA and published truths that are inconvenient to the US government!
On a separate note, the Republicans should also arrest and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post for publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The members of the Supreme Court, who ruled in favor of NYTimes’ freedom of speech, should also be arrested for terrorism and persecuted to the full extend.
Anything short of that would betray our commitment to the freedom of speech.
The Republican Party should teach everybody (especially those Kenyan-born anti-American terrorist Democrats!) a lesson that USA in 2010 is not like USA in 1971, just as Germany in 1933 was not like Germany in 1925.
Comment by Ostap Bender — December 15, 2010 @ 4:54 am
One of the greatest demonstrations of the Republican love for freedoms, is the Patriot Act, a very modest and prudent document designed to stop terrorism without giving the Big Brother any new ways to screw its citizens.
The various wonderful freedom-loving laws that are part of this Act, are too numerous to list. Here is just one:
– Buy too many cold tablets – go to jail as a terrorist
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/37212.html.
The “PATRIOT” Act and Your Local Pharmacy
Posted by William Grigg on September 26, 2009 10:55 AM
Last March, Sally Harpold of Clinton, Indiana bought a one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband. A few days later, she bought a single box of Mucinex-D for her adult daughter, who is the mother of triplets.
Four months later, Mrs. Harpold and her husband were awakened at daybreak by the always unwelcome sound of police banging on their front door. She was arrested and taken away in handcuffs for the purported crime of purchasing more than 3.0 grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine (PSE) within a seven-day period.
The grandmother saw her picture plastered on the front page of the local statist media organ (also known as the Terre Haute Tribune-Star newspaper) under the headline “17 Arrested in Drug Sweep.” Charged under Indiana “law” 35-48-4-14.7, Mrs. Harpold faced the prospect of 60 days in jail and a $500 fine — as punishment for buying legal over-the-counter cold preparations in quantities the state’s parasite class considers inappropriate.
Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander, of out the supposed goodness of what passes for her heart, allowed the innocent grandmother to go through a “deferral” program: In exchange for paying the court costs run up in prosecuting her for doing nothing, Mrs. Harpold (who had never been in trouble with the “law” before) would have her record expunged.
Alexander acknowledges that the grandmother is innocent of criminal intent, and that her actions were not criminal in se. However, she maintains, “I’m simply enforcing the law as it was written,” and that she will continue to monitor pharmacy records to “prosecute people who violate this law.”
“Sometimes mistakes happen,” comments Sheriff Jon Marvel of neighboring Vigo County. “But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect. I feel for [Mrs. Harpold], but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother….”
////////////////
Yes, friends, grandmothers with stuffed noses and meth-addicted mothers are Islamic terrorists, and the Patriot Act protects us from them!
Comment by Ostap Bender — December 15, 2010 @ 5:15 am
In what appears to be a balanced review, here’s an article on why the Chinese person in question doesn’t deserve the Noble Peace Prize:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12132010.html
Comment by Andrew#3 — December 20, 2010 @ 1:19 pm