China commentary: due Tues, 5/8, before school

[Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)]

Cut and paste this in your browser to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplomacy-faces-test-in-china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Read respond to this article by offering and supporting your opinion
on the degree to which the US should prioritize human rights
compliance in China relative to economic and security issues in our
dealings with that country. One well written paragraph is sufficient.

[Cat Mosier-Mills]

My overall opinion is that we should prioritize human rights over economic ties. If we don't abide by the values on which our nation was founded, we're no better than China, claiming to think one way and acting another way. We shouldn't come across as a "liberating" country if the rule doesn't apply to all countries; therefore, if we want to be known as an economically unstable, but extremely safe haven for dissidents, then we should be that. If we want to be an economic superpower and risk violating human rights, then we should do it.  (In my opinion, I'd rather be known as a nice country than an aggressive country; it's not worth sacrificing citizens for power. After all, in a democracy like ours, the citizens are technically the deciding force of anything.) This lukewarm, "one foot in, one foot out" approach to preventing human rights abuses causes most of the conflict we see anyway; for example, the article mentioned our approach to Egypt (supported Mubarak for oil, and support democracy movements) as well as Saudi Arabia (ignore human rights abuses for oil money.) Yes, economic ties are extremely important, but why would we want to do business with such a shady customer? China is manipulating us into an economic relationship that forces us to overlook their human rights abuses in return for economic stability.

[Alexa Lee]

I believe that the US should completely prioritize human rights over our economic and security issues.  We must hold true to our beliefs of freedom, equality, and justice.  Otherwise people have every right to accuse us of hypocrisy like with Iraq and Guantánamo.  Additionally in the future China's communist government is bound to collapse and turn to democracy.  Why not help them move along?  Also, we must note that Mr. Chen was not the only dissident in the country, there have been and are presently many other people suffering.  There are many other people seeking change, longing for liberation.  As a powerful democratic country with a base in the rights of humanity, it is our duty to help those in need.  Our economic and security issues are not nearly as important. Without action that supports our beliefs, we have no reason to remain a democracy.  I believe if we tolerate such treatment of humans, we are worse than those who abuse them.    And since our country is founded on the basis of freedom, it would be wrong of us not to fight the oppression.  

[Ashley Gubernick]

Of course, being an American, I feel America should prioritize human rights over economic and security issues, but I also believe it isn't that simple.  Ethically, human rights are far more important than economics and security issues, but for the leaders of the United States this may not be as true.  This is the exact reason they are the leaders.  Leaders must make tough decisions; as citizens we can sit back and say human rights matter the most  and we must use America's authority to pursue making sure human rights are a priority in other countries, but for the Obama administration they have to look back at history to perceive what might be most beneficial for the future, and they must take into consideration power. Yes America was built on the idea of freedom for all and equality, but in order to have this freedom America must be powerful so that we have security.  Thus jeopardizing America's security jeopardizes freedom for American citizens, and as the President of America Obama needs to put his country first.  Thus, although human rights should be more important than economic and security ties, it is understandable that this may not be the case.  Mr. Chen is a perfect opportunity for the United States to showcase our support for freedom and human rights, but is this opportunity too risky?

[Josh Klag]

I believe that the U.S. should stand up for human rights whenever possible, but also that in these circumstances, taking a firm stand for human rights could have costly side-effects. Calling China out for their human rights problems could compromise our relationship with them, which could then in turn devastate the U.S. economy. Additionally, a ragged relationship with a country as powerful as China may have a small chance of producing a security threat in the future. So although this country is founded on the principles of individual rights and freedom, we must worry about our own country and people first and foremost. The more reasonable solution, as said in the article, is gradually bettering China's respect for human rights with quiet diplomacy.    

On Monday, May 7, 2012 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Ken Sklar (Radnor High School) wrote:

[Allie Martin]

I believe that, while economic ties are important, the US isn't doing enough in regards to China's human rights problem. I loved how the author compared this situation to how Reagan handled the Soviet Union by "relentlessly" bringing up the USSR's violations and how it seems Obama is doing the opposite. I also think that this could be a reason for us to cut some of the ties we have to China. Maybe we need to distance ourselves because the Chinese could very easily blackmail if they had the reason. This all really ties back to our political and economic needs outweighing the moral values this country was built on. I see that we can't destroy one of our most important economic relationships for human rights but I certainly think that we could be doing more that we are currently doing.

On Monday, May 7, 2012 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Ken Sklar (Radnor High School) wrote:

[Rachel Hochberger]

I think that the US should prioritize human rights over economic and security issues in this situation. I understand that while the US’s economic relations with China are hugely important, China would cease to exist if not for its people, whose rights are being grossly violated right now. How is China, or any country for that matter expected to take the US seriously if we claim to stand for individual freedom and independence, but allows one of its trading partners to take those exact rights from its people. Our country was founded on this premise, and if we cease to support and act on it, we will become a totally hypocritical country. I also think that similar to the Arab Spring, more and more Chinese dissidents will revolt in ways similar to Chen Guangcheng. So by not supporting him, America is only putting off dealing with this issue, as opposed to taking a firm stand on our beliefs, showing both China and the world how we believe people should be treated, and upholding a high standard of human rights. And while supporting China’s dissidents may not ease relations right now, with many countries worldwide democratizing, supporting Chinese now may be the key to help strengthening ties in the future.

[Connor]

I think that by making supporting human rights a top priority, the United States will be respected in the international community and other nations will look to the U.S. as an example. This scenario involving Mr. Chen is a delicate one and must be handled carefully, but I think that the United States can protect humans rights without directly insulting China. I think that by standing up for human rights worldwide, and especially in China, the people of countries with negligent human rights will support the United States and democracy. I understand that geopolitical interest is going to win out in the long run concerning every decision that the U.S. makes, but I also think that before thinking that protecting human rights will not have positive outcomes, the potential outcomes should be weighed. In the end, I think that by setting an example of support of human rights to China, it will inspire the people of China to push for greater rights and pressure the government of China to ease up.

[Lizzy Hilt]

If it were any other country, I would be in agreement with the human rights advocators; however, since the issue jeopardizes the relationship between the US and China, I believe we need to approach this situation with extreme caution. Yes, the great United Sates of American was founded on the idea of freedom and human rights, but in order to maintain this democratic society, there needs to be a strong economy. This is where the problem lies. Not with the Chinese dissident, but within the foundation of our society. Since our economy is teetering on the brink of disaster, we need to weigh our options here. I believe it is important for us to address the issues that could create a stronger country by improving our relations with China and stimulating our economy by repaying our depts. If we address human rights issues at a time like this, it could potentially destroy our country. It is worth putting human rights on hold while we get our country back on track. Once we do this, then we can exercise our belief in human rights, but we cannot have that privilege when we have let our country spiral into such economic hardships. It is the responsible thing to deal with the economy first and the human rights second. It is just like acting with your heart instead of your head, it’s a bad idea. 

[Quincy Shuda]

This situation definitely has many pieces, and it seems very one-sided to me to jump to any single conclusion. I think before the right decision can be made, the government really needs to look at it from multiple perspectives such as China’s and the rest of the worlds (we don’t want to be seen as “imperialistic” but at the same time we must defend what we think is right). Of course the view of our own country will be the most prominent, but even then it is a tricky concept. In my opinion, we should really be standing behind the human rights activists, simply because that is what I see as the true meaning behind our country. We stand for freedom, independence, and openness, so in all of our relations that is what we should strive for. Yes, special exceptions can be made as with all cases, but I personally don’t think this is one. China is a country that has been around for a while now and it seems to me from what we have learned that it has been displaying its Communist-like traits the entire time, running the media and crushing the people under their inhumane rules. China is not a brand new country like South Sudan who needs to be trained and have time to take in its surroundings to come to conclusions; China is not a baby, rather a stubborn teenage child with their mind set on their ways. And as any responsible parent, teacher, mentor, or whatever you would like to call the United States in this relationship, would do, we cannot give in to their irresponsible acts simply to appease them. We must teach them from our knowledge and force them to change their ways, while still showing them that we care. I have a lot of respect for the Obama administration and understand why they are looking at the problems diplomatically as they are, as not to cause an eruption in a very important relationship. I just think they need to find ways to prove to China that human rights are not evil and people can still be controlled even with freedom. The United States needs to give China guidance and China needs to welcome it as we both play different roles because fair is not always equal.

[Melissa Lee]

Although it may seem that maintenance of economic relations with China especially in recent years is important for the sake of our role in the global community, human rights is a separate issue, if not more important. I think we should stay true to our freedom-based values and adhere to supporting those who seek basic rights that we are already given here. Human rights shouldn’t be something that a nation may or may not attain—it ideally should be universally understood and accepted. As the US is able to incorporate and (generally) accept the diversity of cultures found worldwide, we should be providing opportunity for people of different backgrounds and beliefs. Even though it seems the US is often put on the spot to be the mediator or humanitarian advocate, it is for good reason. However, I agree that it is important to incorporate some pragmatism when dealing with human rights, so the US does not appear too lenient or one-sided. But, in the end, I feel that the severity of China's lacking human rights is too prominent to ignore, for it seems to be the main focus of the people who should matter the most: the Chinese citizens as a whole. Hopefully, this decision can positively influence the Communist government, which recently questioned their own party while juggling corruption scandals. 

On Monday, May 7, 2012 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Ken Sklar (Radnor High School) wrote:

[Ben Cohen]

I feel that the US has managed the blind dissident situation as well
as they possibly could have. The US needs to continue to keeps their
demands towards rapidly growing countries quiet, or else they will pay
for it later. Obama has quietly demanded China stop abusing human
rights, which is smart because loud, demanding commands only makes
China dislike us more. I think the Us has to prioritize security and
economic interests over human rights because almost every other
country does, and not doing it would make us fall behind. The Us does
not want to further its reputation as the bully. It needs to build up
trust with the growing countries and a good relationship will pay off
with cooperation later. Letting the dissident come to the US was not a
bad mood because the Chinese are almost relieved the US did that. To
me the dissident situation was a terrible situation for the Us and
they managed to get by it with minimal damage.

On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"

<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:
> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...

[Leigh]

In my opinion, we should be innovative in this situation. Ideally, we shouldn't play it safe and try to appease china, but rater we should try to do something unprecedented. Personally, I think we should stage a dramatic fake death of Mr. Guangcheng. Maybe we could have someone pretend to push him off a cliff into water, but actually it was just a dummy, and meanwhile the real Mr. Guangcheng sneaks away to safety in America. Of course, this is highly unlikely. In all seriousness, I think the U.S. should do their best to save Chen Guangcheng, but when our economy and policies are at risk we should let him go. Its an awful thing to do, but one man shouldn't ruin our relations with China completely. I'm usually for human rights protection, and believe the murders in Syria should be ended, but for some reason I just can't fully support this man. I truly do hope everything works for him and he can come to America and be safe from his oppressive government. Actually, as you might be able to tell, I'm still very on-the-fence about this issue. I feel bad for the brutality this man has faced, and want him to come to the U.S., but I don't want it to ruin Chinese political cooperation. Basically, everything is China's fault and they should just let us have Mr. Guangcheng quietly.

[Maddie Chapin]

The US should prioritize the human rights aspect over the economic and security issues. This is because our country revolves around the idea of freedom and democracy which directly correspond with human rights. It would seem hypocritical of us to put our personal economic issues with China over human rights, and would cause an uproar amongst not only American citizens, but the Chinese because it might seem two-faced of the US. By worrying about our economic interests over struggling civilians, this would contradict the whole idea and belief system of the US and might cause others to lose respect for us. We have to always strongly enforce our beliefs to show how strongly we feel about violating human rights, and the measures we will takes to prevent these issues, so they don't happen. 

On Monday, May 7, 2012 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Ken Sklar (Radnor High School) wrote:

[James Lofton]

In this case, I completely agree with the stance the United States
government has taken on this perplexing issue. It is undisputed that
our country was built upon a foundation of laws that promote
individual freedom, and over the course of our existence, the U.S has
come to symbolize a freedom not seen in many repressive countries. But
in no way has the U.S., nor should they, act as a giver of freedom to
all who desire it in other sovereign nations. The best we can do is
set an example of success and achievement that would hopefully cause
reform in repressive countries. Repeatedly violating another country's
national sovereignty would cause extreme political tension and
possibly violence. However, as long as we possess the ability, and see
a time where our actions are justified, offering asylum to high-
profile individuals, or intervening politically, economically, or
militarily, in instances of extreme human rights violations is
completely understandable. The case of mr. Chen is one of these cases.
In no way could the US turn over the lawyer to the Chinese and still
seem respectable in the eyes of the world, and more importantly the
American voter. But they had to handle the situation in a way that
preserves the economic relations with our biggest trading partner. To
be frank, trade with China is more important to the United States than
the Chinese citizen Mr. Chen. If we were to compromise our economic
relationship, our economy would falter so gravely that we could
possibly not be in a position to intervene in future human rights
atrocities. I believe that in this particular instance, the US came
out unscathed, though much remains to be seen.

On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"

<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:
> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...

[Drew Vollmer]

The optimal solution for such a situation would be to find a balance
between human rights and economics. However, that is not the world we
live in, so one factor has to take precedence. While the superficial
decision may be human rights, this would really only work with less
threatening nations. But this is China, our greatest economic worry in
this day and age. Thus, a different approach should be taken. I
believe that initially, America should put greater focus on economics.
By improving our Chinese trade deficit, and stabilizing the economic
situation, America will then be able to hold greater sway regarding
human rights. China currently has much against America, with a quicker
rising economy and increasing global importance. After solving
economic issues, America will no longer have to fear China as some do.
We as a nation will be able to crack down more on such human rights
violations that China makes, but in a diplomatic manner. Rather than
building up military force in the South China, America should be
improve its economic power. Such would first of all, create less
tension between the two, and second of all, it would give America more
lee way when discussing more social and cultural issues with China.
Overall, America should put an initial focus on softening economic
tensions, and then once that is resolved, use this greater power to
crack down on China's human rights violations.

On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"
<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:

> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...

[Colin Castro]

When examining American and Chinese relations it's clear that every
action is important and calculated, but I believe the Americans can't
conform to questionable Chinese human rights. While our economic
relationship is one that America depends on, I don't believe a tougher
stance on Chen's case would legitimately threaten this. An agreement
between American and Chinese diplomats should aim for putting Chen
back in China, in a home with an American and Chinese presence. I find
it a little ridiculous that the US continues to create aggressive
military pacts in the Asian region, but draw the line at a safe life
for Chen and his family. A pact to give Chen freedom, and possibly
even an outlet would be a win-win. America could show they continue to
prioritize human rights, and China could take a stand as a growing,
benevolent leadership. However, unless the Americans actually monitor
this situation it would be all for naught. China must be held to a
higher standard as our world partners, and if we continue to look the
other way and ignore their abuses we further complicate this key
relationship.

[Jeremy Rhome]

The United States walks a fine line between self-interest and projecting the right message to other nations with regards to human rights.  On one hand they need to look out for their interests, like every other country in the world, but on the other hand the United States wants to seem humane as possible to keep a good reputation. However, with this Chen incident, the United States is in an awkward situation where they cannot achieve both of their agendas, as cynical as it sounds, the United States needs to put a greater priority on their own interest over others.  Unfortunately every country, and every human for that matter, looks out for their own self interest and agenda (this goes back to Marxism!).  The US needs to have a high priority on self-intertest but economics are far greater, economics effects every person in the world with globalization.  An economic disagreement with China for this Chen incident would damage economics globally.  Also it would just add to the heightened hostility with China with the already growing South China Sea containment.  An article in the NYT last week explained a cold war with China, one which I think would be very probably by the looks of it.  As much as a sympathize for that man and hope the best for him, if his safety compromises the world's security and economic stability, then the United States economic interest's should come first.

[Maureen McDermott]

Deciding between human rights, which is what American was ultimately founded on, and the stability of our economy and relationship is a choice that has many complicated angles to work, yet I believe that in the end the individual rights and liberties of every human on this planet should precede our own geopolitical interests. Each and every person deserves equal liberties and opportunities, and the rights of that individual should not be compromised by any political relationship, no matter how important. I definitely agree that the U.S. needs to handle this situation with extreme care, deciding very wisely what steps to take, and trying our hardest to maintain a stable relationship with China, but this dissident should not fall victim to the harsh, human rights violating Chinese authorities just because he stood up for what he thought was right. By turning a blind eye to Mr. Chen we are allowing the government to do with him what they wish, which ultimately makes us no better then them. Hopefully with standing up for human rights, even if it creates a strife between our relationship with China, we can set examples for countries all over the world that are struggling with this issue, and eventually we may be able to steer China in the right direction. But we can't expect China to make a comeback with their human rights record if we don't set a proper example and lead the way or them. Ignoring it ourselves will not help fix this problem that is plaguing Chinese society and foreign policy. 

On Monday, May 7, 2012 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, Ken Sklar (Radnor High School) wrote:

[Alex Freedman]

I believe human rights should be one of the US's top priorities in
China. Despite how urgent the Obama administration might believe it is
to come to economic and security agreements with China, the United
States must be an advocate for human rights around the world. We
should not be economic partners with a country that kills people who
speak their minds or represses economic reforms. Mr. Chen is just one
of the many examples of people who speak out against the Chinese
government and have to live in fear, even paranoia about their
reprocussions. However, I am not naive enough to believe that human
rights can be our number one priority when China is the biggest
economic power in the world. Economic issues take presidence, but I
hope our government pursues promoting human rights in China after we
settle other issues with the country. I also hope Mr. Chen is able to
inspire Chinese people to speak up about their freedom even if he
takes asylum in the US.

On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"

<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:
> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...

[Shefain Islam]

The conflict between our ideas and our security are bound to be constantly tense. After all, it is one of the jobs that comes along with being a world power. However, when it comes to China, the United States should stick to security first. Ideally, we would love to stick to our devotion to democracy and human rights. In reality, there is no possible way for us to completely devoted to our ideals when countries around the world are so opposed to them. While this does not mean we should completely not speak out about human rights at all, the United States should get involved enough to make some sort of a difference, but not so much to the point of deterring the country away from the US for good. We have seen all to well what can go wrong when a country becomes completely defiant towards the US (i.e. Iran and North Korea) and with the world economy and general security on thin ice, we can hardly afford to get into tangles with China. Blaring our loud speakers on China's mistreatment of dissidents will only cause distance between the two countries and not only hurt our economical ties, but prevent further discussions on the abuses. It's not the job of the diplomats to raise red flags to the world, but the job the human rights advocates and the people. It would easy for us to immediately demand for China to relent on their oppression but after a few decades of Communism, it is very difficult to get China to take our demands seriously. While we are the all powerful US, China still holds a few things over our heads. All we can do is plead and discuss behind the scenes, but a full frontal brawl over human rights abuses will only shut doors for further progress and discussion and sever important economic ties.

[Sarah M]

Ethically, I believe that the United States should stand up for human
rights in China and every other repressed nation on the globe.
Ethically, I believe that Communism should work because everyone
should be treated as equals and enjoy the same rights and benefits.
But when it comes time to face the reality of the situation, I realize
that often it is necessary for geopolitical interests to surpass
ideological beliefs. We are in a global recession, and trading with
China is one of our only lifelines towards improving, despite the fact
that most Chinese employees work in horrible conditions for meager
wages. It is human nature to put our needs for survival above
strangers. However, in the case of the blind dissident that we are
helping to escape, the United States is risking straining its
geopolitical partnership with China for an ideological belief in
freedom and justice. It’s important to keep in mind that the dissident
is only one man we are helping, as we exploit millions of other
Chinese. But he serves as a symbol for the greater moral standard we
are attempting to hold ourselves and China to in the future, if only
we can end our financial dependence and therefore lopsided
relationship with them.

[Addy]

Even though I would like to say that we could prioritize human rights ov economy and save every person on earth who is oppressed and brutalized, I just think that it is infeasible to do so. I think that we need to put America first and it's economy and people above all others. I think that to threaten our relationship with china in order to give sanctuary to one oppressed soul is foolish and unwise. I think that the issue of human rights around the world and especially in china is a huge issue but allowing Chen safety and possibly threaten Chinese-American relations makes no sense. The bottom line is people will always be oppressed somewhere in the world and the US shouldn't hold it's people responsible to free them all. In the article it talks about the hipocrisy of the USA and I kind of agree with the author. By trying to defend human rights in small pockets of the world we are vulnerable to that kind of critique.

[Erica F]

This is an extremely complicated, delicate problem that the United
States is dealing with right now. On one hand, as an American, I
believe the US should push for human rights whenever possible, since
that's what our country is built on. On the other hand, China is a
totally different country from ours, with a drastically different
government; the way that that country is as of right now, our ideas
won't fit into their mold. The only way for us to push for more human
rights would mean disrupting the natural order of China, which would,
without a doubt, lead to turmoil economically. Am I saying that we
shouldn't try to enforce more human rights there? No. I simply believe
that doing that has many more repercussions than people would think.
China wouldn't go down without a fight- I don't know how easy or hard
that fight would be to win. Not only is China growing economically at
an alarming rate, but their economy is attached to ours at the hip,
making any hiccup in our relationship turn into something terrible.
Something definitely needs to be done regarding China's treatment of
their people, but somehow I think that the people of China will end up
changing that themselves in the (hopefully) not too distant future.
On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"

<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:
> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...

[Erica F]

This is an extremely complicated, delicate problem that the United
States is dealing with right now. On one hand, as an American, I
believe the US should push for human rights whenever possible, since
that's what our country is built on. On the other hand, China is a
totally different country from ours, with a drastically different
government; the way that that country is as of right now, our ideas
won't fit into their mold. The only way for us to push for more human
rights would mean disrupting the natural order of China, which would,
without a doubt, lead to turmoil economically. Am I saying that we
shouldn't try to enforce more human rights there? No. I simply believe
that doing that has many more repercussions than people would think.
China wouldn't go down without a fight- I don't know how easy or hard
that fight would be to win. Not only is China growing economically at
an alarming rate, but their economy is attached to ours at the hip,
making any hiccup in our relationship turn into something terrible.
Something definitely needs to be done regarding China's treatment of
their people, but somehow I think that the people of China will end up
changing that themselves in the (hopefully) not too distant future.
On May 7, 2:10 pm, "Ken Sklar (Radnor High School)"
<kenneth.sk...@rtsd.org> wrote:

> Cut and paste this in your browser to read:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-approach-to-diplom...