PRICING OUR PRINCIPLES
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX
The day after Beijing was chosen to host the 2008 Olympics, China arrested a
veteran dissident, Yan Peng, on suspicion of illegal emigration. He had been
in Vietnam on a group tour, and had traveled on proper documents, but he was
detained on the Chinese side of the border. His computer and other property
were confiscated.
Yan Pen’s arrest is the tip of the iceberg of China’s harrowing set of
human rights violations. A Chinese American scholar, Goa Zhan, has not yet
been released, despite the fact that she has a faculty appointment in
Washington, DC and is a permanent resident of the United States. Her child
was held for 28 days before his father was able to have him returned here.
Goa Zan is not the only scholar who is being held in china. Wu Jainmin,
a United States citizen, is being held, as is Tan Guangguang. Wu is a US
citizen, and his release is being discussed in diplomatic circles. Still,
the conditions of his detention seem to be a human rights violation.
These kinds of human rights violations might have deterred a different
International Olympics Committee from awarding China the 2008 games. Or, a
different set of circumstances might have inspired human rights activists in
the United States and in other parts of the world to protest the possibility
of China’s selection more vigorously. But many in the United States think
that awarding the Olympics to China provides them with an incentive to clean
up their human rights act. A first step might be to stop harassing
activists, and to release the scholars they are unnecessarily detaining.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that China will experience
increased scrutiny because they were awarded the Olympics. While some in the
House of Representatives were prepared to ask the IOC not to give China the
games, President Bush asked them to refrain from voting on such a resolution,
and they did. From a distance, this seems a benign attempt to bring china to
the world table, with its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and
its preparation for the Olympics.
But recent economic data from China may suggest the real reason the
United States has been so courtly to the country that we described as a foe
just a few months ago. China’s economy grew by 7.8 percent in the second
quarter of this year, dwarfing the growth rates of the United States and the
rest of much of the world. In the Asian-Pacific region, growth rates as high
as those in China are largely unheard of. Much of East Asia, including
Japan, is either experiencing economic contraction now, or is expected to
experience a slowdown in the future.
China’s rapid growth is a function of domestic demand. They can’t get
enough of that consumer stuff, and some of it comes from the United States.
They can’t get enough of development, either, even if they have to run a
budget deficit to pay for public works. And, they can’t get enough of the
involvement of US companies in the development of their economy. It’s a
win-win from an economic perspective. Companies that are experiencing
sluggish demand in the United States can pick up the slack by their
involvement in China. Let’s be clear, though, that our neutrality on China
getting the Olympics was more pragmatic than anything else. We shut up about
human rights because we cared more about ways China’s economic growth affects
our own.
Secretary of State Powell says that economic democracy will force
political democracy. His statements, and those of others in this country,
seem to suggest that China, grateful for the Olympics, will change their ways
to conform more closely to world standards and world opinion about their
human rights practices. I don’t think so, and would have prepared to impose
the stick, not the carrot on China. I’d have prepared to tell the Chinese
government that they could have the Olympics if, and only if, they released
the scholars they are holding and cleaned up their human rights violations.
The Chinese government is aware that they are a highly sought after market,
and that one in four consumers, with increasing income, live in China.
Still, estimates from the Chinese State Statistics Bureau suggest that
the 2008 Olympics Games will add to China’s growth rate by at least
three-tenths of a percentage point. Additionally the games will attract
international involvement and investment, and pull hundreds of thousands of
tourists and athletes to China. There ought to be some conditions attached
to the economic development China will experience as a result of the
Olympics. Too many in the United Sates have been reluctant to impose
conditions on China because it is such an economic powerhouse. It’s too bad
that we’ve put a price on our principles.