Thursday, March 27, 1997

Washington is not America, Beijing is not China

Washington is not America, Beijing is not China
Originally posted at Chinese Community Forum (CCF)
Bevin Chu
March 26, 1997

Mr. Cornett's thoughtful letter deserves a respectful reply. I hope he will agree that I have made a sincere attempt to provide just that.

To begin with I too am an American. I am Chinese by birth and ethnicity, but 100% American in my political philosophy. I was naturalized under Ronald Reagan, who reminded Americans that the proper role of government was to get the hell out of our way. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "those people are governed best who are governed least."

The American concept of good government is next to no government. A government is not a country. A country is not its government. A nation's life is lived in its private sector, its civil society. The government's role is to be the nighwatchman in the basement, while the real business of the country is conducted in the office suites. America is not Pennsylvania Avenue, it is Main Street and Wall Street. It is 100% American to love one's country while hating one's government. This is what Reagan meant when he spoke to cheering audiences about "getting Big Government off our backs."

Mr. Cornett mentions Lao-tse, to me the greatest Chinese philosopher of all time. Lao-tse originated the concept of minimal government, which he summed up as "wu wei erh zhi" or "administering by doing nothing." If "wu wei erh zhi" sounds astonishingly similar to classical liberal concepts of "laissez faire" and "the Invisible Hand" it merely confirms that Chinese people share this fundamental value with westerners.

I love America. It is no contradiction to say that I hate the oppressive, arrogant Federal government in Washington. It simultaneously abuses American citizens at home while lecturing other governments abroad for doing the same. Consider recent remarks by State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns:

"I don't think . . . we need to listen to lectures from authoritarian countries about our human rights performance because we are the world's champion of human rights,'' [Those around the world who had their human rights taken away] ``look to us to speak up for them''. [The US government] is ``very confident about our policy and emphasis on human rights and we're not going to be deterred, especially by countries that are major violators of human rights.''

As Tonto reminded the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean we Kemo Sabe?" If Mr. Burns thinks that the victims of Ruby Ridge and Waco identify with the US Federal government as "the world's champion of human rights" he should talk to Timothy McVeigh.

My response: "The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue."

This was taken from the Libertarian Party's platform on Human Rights, but I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Today we hear a lot of sermonizing from both American leftists and rightists about the "human rights" concerns of the US government and how these concerns must take precedence over the "mere" commercial interests of private American businesses. Whole forests have died in order that they could denounce the "New China Lobby" (comprised incidentally, of highly knowledgeable China hands from the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations) which is accused of being unpatriotic and of selling out American values.

The critics have it backwards. According to traditional American values the moral judgements of public servants, elected or otherwise, does not have priority over the commercial interests of American citizens. To hold such a view is UN-American. In America the government is the servant, not the parole officer/moral guardian of the American citizen. "Linkage" may sound high-minded, but "linkage" itself is a human rights violation. It violates the rights of private citizens to engage in free trade simply because government bureaucrats "don't like it."

Sorry, but it's not their place to like or dislike it. If Madeleine Albright, Jesse Helms or Nancy Pelosi can't get along with their counterparts in Beijing, that's just too damned bad. They should go into counseling and let the CEOs of Boeing, Caterpillar, MacDonalds and Motorola get on with the serious work of building the emerging global economy. The emerging global economy in which Honda builds automobile plants in Ohio and Dell builds computer plants in Japan is unlikely to witness either another Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima. Japanese and Americans are not about to bomb their own factories.

Obviously the same holds true of the US and China. If the business communities (not the governments) of both nations build on an already deepening mutual economic interdependence, the dreaded "Coming Conflict with China" will never happen. The global economy may just turn out to be the unappreciated harbinger of a planetwide civil society which finally makes mankind's yearning for enduring peace more than just an idle dream.

It would be an ironic vindication of laissez-faire economists Adam Smith and Friedrich Bastiat if world peace was finally brought about by aggressive, tough-minded businessmen such as "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap and Bill Gates (the CEOs of Sunbeam and Microsoft) rather than bleeding hearts such as the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa.

Thursday, March 06, 1997

Media, Human Rights, and Waco

Media, Human Rights, and Waco
Originally posted at Chinese Community Forum (CCF)
Bevin Chu
March 5, 1997

Response to Da-jiang Liu

I regret that Mr. Liu felt I was having a facile joke at his expense. I see in retrospect how it might have come across that way, but that was not my intention. My purpose was quite serious -- to illustrate the lack of symmetry in the way the US Federal government routinely preaches human rights to the governments of other countries. It habitually drags other countries' domestic transgressions into international trade negotiations, but never seems to notice that hardly any other government presumes to relate to the US government the same way.

Do Helmut Kohl and Jacques Chirac condition trade with America on redress of BATF and FBI violations of human rights at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Some insist that international trade must be linked to human rights. My response: Should Kohl and Chirac prohibit Daimler Benz from exporting Mercedes to eagerly awaiting American car buyers, or Coca-Cola from serving thirsty Frenchmen until Waco and Ruby Ridge are resolved to German and French government satisfaction? Should they demand that American law enforcement agents be called onto the carpet to answer to them? How would Americans react if they did? Would we conclude Europeans were empathizing with our plight and thank them for it, or would we bristle at them as sanctimonious busy bodies?

Premier Li Peng and General Chi Haotien brutalizing Chinese civilians within China is a domestic Chinese issue. President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno authorizing the legalized murder of American citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco is a domestic American issue. For foreigners to presume that Americans can't resolve homegrown abuses of governmental power without foreign intervention insults the American public. For Americans to assume that foreigners can't do the same within their own countries insults foreigners. The role reversal gimmick was merely an attempt to illustrate that point.

To a champion of laissez-faire and minimal government America is not the Federal juggernaut in Washington DC. America is Boeing, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Motorola, and Proctor & Gamble, ad infinitum, all of whose shareholders' have the right to trade with the Chinese people. As a former Republican president once quipped "The business of America is business." Therefore when the US Federal government (or the PRC Central government) tramples on the rights of American and Chinese citizens to engage in free trade, that is an intolerable human rights violation.

Capitalism and communism are economic systems first, political systems second. Communism's "human rights violations" were violations of economic rights before anything else. Maoism's violation of Chinese peasants' economic rights during the Great Leap Forward alone resulted in the death by starvation of 30 million Chinese. Capitalism's virtue is its defense of people's economic rights. "Human rights champions" who demean economic liberalization as "meaningless" without political liberalization should try living without economic rights. They know nothing about the millions who were reduced to eating grass and bark before dying agonizing deaths.

Today's Federal leviathan has no more moral claim to be a defender of human rights abroad than it does at home. To cast it in the role of a global knight errant is to fall into the trap of worshipping the state as a higher entity than individual human beings. Ironically it is falling prey to the same statism which handed China to Mao. Paradoxically the wise government of the early Founding Fathers, imbued with incomparably greater moral virtue than modern American administrations, never presumed to preach human rights to the rest of the world. Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that those who walk the walk, don't need to talk the talk?

The Federal government which Thomas Jefferson deemed a necessary evil hasn't become any more necessary but it is a hell of a lot more evil. It has metastasized into the cancer of Big Government which former president Ronald Reagan tried valiantly but vainly to get off the backs of Americans. No longer content with infringing the rights of Americans by plundering one third of their hard-earned wealth every April 15th, it now wants to infringe the economic rights of the rest of the world. Canada, Mexico, and the European Union with Helms-Burton. China with Most Favored Nation -- as if refraining from violating the rights of Americans and Chinese to engage in free trade constituted a favor.

I am indeed frustrated with the intellectual mainstream's selective moral conscience. But since when is it narrow minded to expect that moral standards applied to others be applied with equal force to oneself? There is a word for moral/ethical consistency: integrity. And there is a word for its opposite: hypocrisy. Frustrated? You bet!

Response to Chengming Yang

Mr. Yang assumes that others share his low opinion of the parishioners of the Branch Davidian Church, therefore to compare them to the pro-democracy hunger strikers at Tiananmen Square demeans the latter. But many Americans, myself included, do not feel the Davidians did anything wrong, certainly nothing that warranted being starved, gassed and burned to death for. Since I don't feel the Davidians were wrong or evil, I feel the comparison is favorable to both the Tiananmen protestors and to the Davidians.

But even if Mr. Yang feels the Davidians weren't on the same moral plane as the Tiananmen protestors, the question is still irrelevant. The issue doesn't hinge on the moral stature of the victims. The point is that when push comes to shove the US Federal government isn't much more just than the Beijing government is toward its own citizens. FBI Director Louis Freeh had as little patience and respect for American citizens who defied them as General Chi Haotien had for the pro-democracy activists who were asserting their constitutional rights in Tiananmen Square.

The Davidians were merely exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, a right the Chinese people ought to enjoy. Chinese civilians, armed to the teeth like the civilian militia in the United States with AK-47s imported, ironically from PRC munitions maker Norinco, could hardly be abused by their own government with the impunity they have been. Personally I find it curious that many of the same US elected officials who advocate gun prohibition are among the loudest voices denouncing the PRC.

Furthermore, those "human rights" advocates in the US who demonize China as "aggressively expansionist" as an pretext to contain it are using the same public relations spin control as the Federal authorities who carefully demonized and thus marginalized the Davidians as "fanatical cultists" so they could get away with gassing and incinerating them without raising too loud a hue and cry from mainstream America.

Those genuinely distressed about human rights abuses must not be naive about the cynical motivations involved and blindly assume that everyone who criticizes the Beijing regime's brutality does so out of solicitude for the fate of ordinary Chinese citizens. I wish it were not so, but far too many people in this world have highly suspect motives for ostensibly noble behavior.

Thursday, February 13, 1997

China Wants US Attorney General to Testify

China Wants US Attorney General to Testify
Originally posted at Chinese Community Forum (CCF)
Bevin Chu
February 12, 1997

Friday December 13 2:37 PM EST China's Central Committee Chairman Wants US Attorney General to Testify

BEIJING (Router) - A senior PRC Central Committee member Friday challenged US Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh to testify before China's Central Committee and offer proof that the FBI did not start the blaze which burned 25 children to death in the 1993 Waco Massacre.

Reno said Tuesday in a speech at Beijing University that David Koresh, not the FBI was responsible for the 75 civilian deaths at the Branch Davidian religious community, including 25 children. David Koresh, or Vernon Howell, was the spiritual leader of the Branch Davidians, a Protestant sect and offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Reno and Director Freeh are on a two week China visit.

Committee Chairman Bao said at a news conference he had invited Reno and Freeh to testify next week at a hearing of the Human Rights Watch America subcommittee, which Chi chairs.

"We cannot accept the statements of Attorney General Reno without her providing the evidence to refute the pictures we have seen of the slaughter and the words of those who witnessed and lived through the Mount Carmel massacre," Chi said.

He said if Reno and Freeh could not attend the hearing in Beijing, members of the subcommittee would meet Reno and Freeh anywhere they wanted to hear their evidence.

Foreign Minister Shen Kuofang said Thursday China knew there had been many deaths at the Branch Davidian compound. The U.S., while admitting some "cultists" were killed as the BATF and FBI moved against the Branch Davidian Church, has consistently denied that Federal law enforcement tactics were responsible for the deaths of 25 children in the holocaust itself. Lethal CS gas, US Army helicopters and tanks were mobilized against the religious commune.

Shen called Reno's comments "unfortunate," "ill-timed" and "inaccurate", but refused to call the attorney general a liar. Reno was the US's top law enforcement officer in 1989.

Bao, a frequent critic of China policy toward the U.S., called the administration's response "unbelieveably weak." He said he was upset that Reno had been granted full state honors and a meeting with President Jiang Zemin during her visit.

"What is just as tragic as the statements made by Attorney General Reno is the shameless actions of the Jiang administration which allowed the attorney general to stand before Chinese officials and deny responsibility for the massacre of civilians by federal officers and unconstitutional use of the US military for domestic law enforcement," Bao Gong said. "Will the president [Jiang Zemin] stop at nothing to give the US government everything it wants while it continues the reign of terror in the United States?"

Bao Gong and other members of the PRC government want Jiang to link China trade with US to Washington's human rights record.

[The above was of course, a fabrication. The real news report follows. But I hope this illustrates the unexamined arrogance and presumption of modern US foreign policy.]

Friday December 13 2:37 PM EST House Chairman Wants China's Chi to Testify

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A senior House Republican Friday challenged Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian to testify before Congress and offer proof that no civilians were killed in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Chi said Tuesday in a speech at the U.S. National Defense University that there were no civilian deaths at Tiananman Square. He is on a two week U.S. visit.

Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, said at a news conference he had invited Chi to testify next week at a hearing of the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee, which Smith chairs.

"We cannot accept the statements of Gen. Chi without him providing the evidence to refute the pictures we have seen of the slaughter and the words of those who witnessed and lived through the Tiananmen Square massacre," Smith said.

He said if Chi could not attend the hearing in Washington, members of the subcommittee would meet Chi anywhere he wanted to hear his evidence.

State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said Thursday the United States knew there had been many deaths in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. China, while admitting some "hooligans" were killed as the army moved against pro-democracy demonstrators, has consistently denied that any civilians died in the square itself.

Burns called Chi's comments "unfortunate," "ill-timed" and "inaccurate", but refused to call the general a liar. Chi was China's top military officer in 1989.

Smith, a frequent critic of U.S. policy toward China, called the administration's response "unbelieveably weak." He said he was upset that Chi had been granted full military honors and a meeting with President Clinton during his visit.

"What is just as tragic as the statements made by Gen. Chi is the shameless actions of the Clinton administration which allowed the general to stand before U.S. military officers and deny that the massacre took place," Smith said. "Will the president stop at nothing to give the Chinese government everything it wants while it continues the reign of terror in the People's Republic of China?"

Smith and other members of both parties want Clinton to link U.S. trade with China to Beijing's human rights record.

Tuesday, February 04, 1997

Uncle Sam, Persecutor of Christians

Uncle Sam, Persecutor of Christians
Bevin Chu
February 03, 1997

The China News
Letters Editor

Dear Sir/Madam,

My jaw dropped when I read that that Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck had condemned Saudi Arabia for repression of religious freedom, charging that the government "commits and tolerates human rights abuses" citing a case where -- quoting the Reuters report -- "a Christian service was broken up by police... and the man who hosted the service was lashed."

It dropped even further when I read that newly appointed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had declared that religious freedom around the world would be a new priority of US human rights policy.

Four years ago in 1993, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh did considerably more than "break up" a Christian service and "lash the host." They surrounded a wooden church annex in Mount Carmel, Texas belonging to a tiny sect of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. With the help of US Army tanks and helicopters and the full legal weight of the Federal law enforcement Leviathan behind them, they terrorized and starved the parishioners within, gassed them with potentially lethal CS gas, and finally in a fit of frustration set fire to the wooden structure and burned 75 church members to death, including 25 children.

May I suggest that before the US State Department and Human Rights Watch preach their (by now all too familiar) Human Rights Sermon to foreign nations such as Saudi Arabia and China, that they first have a "heart to heart" with the US Justice Department, the BATF and the FBI? And while we're on the subject of religion, perhaps the Bibilical injunction to "look not for the mote in someone else's eye, but attend first to the beam in one's own" would not be out of order?


Bevin Chu
Taipei, Taiwan, China

Thursday, January 16, 1997

Mr. Democracy Revisited

Mr. Democracy Revisited
Originally posted at Chinese Community Forum (CCF)
Bevin Chu
January 15, 1997

Letters Editor
Newsweek Magazine

Dear Sir/Madam,

I don't know if Newsweek has been keeping up on Taiwan's Lee Teng-hui, but "Mr. Democracy" has just convened a so-called National Development Conference in Taipei.

Under the pretext of eliciting a diversity of opinions from the two major opposition parties in order to reach a tri-partisan consensus for the future of Taiwan, he sprung a little surprise on his unwary guests.

What he said in effect was "As long as I have you all here, I propose to revise the ROC Constitution so that I can dissolve the Legislature at my discretion, strip the National Assembly of its impeachment power, abolish all local elections, making county supervisors and city mayors presidential appointments, and abolish the Taiwan Provincial government in its entirety, ridding Taiwan of its pesky dual status as a province of China and moving it one step closer to independence. Any objections?"

Imagine the reaction from the American media, including Newsweek, if a US president suddenly declared that he intended to revise the American Constitution so that he could dissolve Congress at will, strip it of its impeachment power, abolish local elections for county and municipal governments making them presidential appointments, and abolish the fifty state governments in one fell swoop?

Would Newsweek continue to refer to such a man as "Mr. Democracy" and coo about his "fundamentally democratic instincts"? Time for a followup story, don't you think?


Bevin Chu
Consultant to Professor Fu Kuen-chen, Member of ROC Legislature (New Party)
(The opinion expressed is my own, and does not necessarily reflect that of any other individual or party)