Yin and Yang

Would I lie to you honey?
Now would I say something that wasn't true?
I'm asking you sugar
Would I lie to you?
--Would I Lie to you?, The Eurythmics

[I]t will not be a war about democracy.
Except for Israel, there are no democracies in the Mideast,
and there will be none in the foreseeable future
--Richard Nixon, on Gulf War I
_______________

Richard Nixon's 1991 essay in which he defines what the Gulf War would and would not be about shows how far directness has fallen from favor. Today's watchword: obfuscation.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says human rights concerns will not affect relations with China because. . . that is the truth.

The Guardian UK quotes Clinton:

"I appreciate greatly the Chinese government's continuing confidence in United States treasuries. I think that's a well grounded confidence."

China, which has foreign exchange reserves worth around $2tn, is the world's largest holder of US government debt.

Yang said: "In making use of our foreign exchange reserves, we want to ensure the safety of the reserves, the good value of them and also the liquidity of the forex reserves."

"We know what they're going to say because I've had those kinds of conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders. . . .

"We have to continue to press them... But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises. "We have to have a dialogue that leads to an understanding and cooperation on each of those." (Clinton Seeks Consensus with China)

We are pwn3d by China, and economic concerns trump human rights every time. Yessirree, Bob -- a radical change from the Bush era. Yet Ranger agrees with Clinton: though the policy dooms the Chinese population to lives devoid of personal freedoms, democracy in China is not his concern. The U.S. flushed China in 1949, so why sweat it now? Thanks for all the rubber shower shoes.

The WaPo wrote, "Clinton said she would raise human rights issues with Chinese officials, 'but we pretty much know what they're going to say.'" While it is no lie, it is a statement of resignation.

Maybe such frankness is the better part of negotiations, kind of a Neuro Linguistic Programmatic approach, a veiled challenge. Maybe you will not do better, but we who wish you would will ask about it. Maybe that is the correct limit of diplomacy. One thing is for sure: We are not going to force your hand while you're floating our bonds.

Now, if you are all on board still with the honeymoon idea of "Change," realpolitik leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. But the fact is, the U.S. is no longer the Big Superpower who can pull out big ideological guns; we neither have them free at the moment, nor have we been living by such high falutin' principles for a while now.

The thing that rubs Ranger the wrong way is the hypocrisy and shadow dancing. The U.S. is ostensibly fighting for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet does not seem to mind that our most favored trading partner trammels on the rights of its citizens every day of the week.

This is also schizophrenic. We either fight for democracy, or we do not. It is not a pick and choose concept. We spend 100's of billions of dollars fighting wars ostensibly to secure freedom in one part of the world, while borrowing the money to fight these wars from an undemocratic country in another part of the world.

The supreme irony is the Afghanis and Iraqis will not have democracy if it were served up on a platter, while the Chinese are clamoring for those same freedoms. But we will not facilitate that, because we are economically hamstrung, because the Chinese would not allow it.

Because we are traitors to our voiced cause.

__________________

Follow-on:

When did Clinton have "those kinds of conversations
for more than a decade with Chinese leaders"?
She was on the Budget and Armed Services Committee while in the Senate.