Boycotting The Summer Olympic Games In China

I for one was very pleased to see the protests taking place in Paris, London, and now San Francisco over the human rights abuses and dreadful foreign policy decisions by China.  At a time when too many here think of Iraq and the Middle East when the extremely broad topic of foreign policy is mentioned, it is important that Chinese policies be brought to the center of our global awareness.

I have long argued that the decision by President Nixon to go to China was more important than the Watergate affair.  As deeply damaging as Watergate was to the political culture in our nation, the fact is the positive effects of Nixon’s famous China trip are more important.  The long lasting impact of opening lines of dialogue and trade has benefited both our nations, and fostered connections that will serve all in the future.  If we do what is right.

By having international connections with China does not mean there are not serious differences that will require honest debate and action.  We should not be blind to the fact that every nation that we consider to be a rouge state has the support of China.  China policy to these nations comes in various forms, be it militarily or economic.  Iran is but perhaps the most central example to many who follow the headlines.  But the issues that arise from Chinese policies in places like Tibet and Darfur, and which do not see the banner headlines everyday, are worthy of the reaction that has been seen over the Olympic Games to be held this summer in China.

The ability of leveraging China to move in a more humane direction is one of the benefits of having diplomatic relations with the most populous nation in the world.  We should not, and must not abdicate our role on the world stage.  There is an old saying that “the road to the East runs through the West.”    If the United States uses the clout we now have on the world stage, and in conjunction with our European allies, we can set again a tone and series of expectations about Chinese foreign policy.   There are rules that govern civilized nations, and the world community.

We have the ability to do this, since our primacy on the world stage is not in doubt today.  But with China growing in economic and military power, that chance will not be forever ours to take.  By banding together with leaders such as Prime Minister Brown, and French President Szarkozy we have an opportunity to make a statement about what we think is most important in the world.  As China rises as a world power it does so at a time when open and democratic nations rule the world.  To not coerce China to play by the international rules will set up a world struggle that we will soon regret. 

We have an opportunity with the Olympic Games.  The protestors have opened the door.  Will the United States be willing to lead the world through the door?

Technorati Tags: Tibet, Darfur, China, ForeignPolicy, International, OlympicGames, RichardNixon

 

World Awaits America’s Rebirth Of Leadership, Hope, And Vision

Our nation needs a strong President.  The world hungers for leadership.

As a Democrat and vocal critic of President Bush I am often incorrectly tarred with the brushstroke of either ‘hating America’ or ‘a hater of Bush.”  In both instances it is an incorrect statement and one that misses my thoughts entirely.

I have long argued that our nation needs a leader that is strong and robust with vision and skills to lead not only our country in perilous times, but also steer the world towards the harbor.  The issues that confront us are of such enormity that any one of them could lead us all to a most calumnious situation.  I understand that elections matter and every four years I am engaged in the nations’ decision about our future.  However, once the election is over I try to support, when possible, the Administration as I know through discussion and compromise the country then can move forward.

I supported President Bush on his ideas concerning mentoring programs during his 2000 race and wrote a heart-felt letter praising him for advocating such a position.  At the time I was a Program Director in a non-profit program where I assisted in matching teenage boys from group homes with adult mentors in the community.  When there was a potential President who understood the virtue of what works locally I wrote to express my thanks.

When Bush took the appropriate position for allowing foreign owned companies to administratively operate our seaports I was shoulder to shoulder with him every step of the way.  He was correct, and while everyone else from both parties piled on him (some for pure politics) I took the view of what was best for international relations and fair play, and stood by my President.

President Bush had the right position on immigration originally until he started to modify it for political purposes.  I was a strong supporter of his compassionate view of immigration and felt he had  useful insight having been Governor of Texas.

I also have given Bush the latitude to select nominees for the Supreme Court that he desires.  I know elections have consequences, and one of them is that the President who wins gets to make such decisions. 

Having said all of this I must admit to having strong reservations about the way Bush obtained the Oval Office in 2000 but feel he won the election fairly in 2004, though many have suggested electoral fraud in states such as Ohio.

Being a good citizen means keeping abreast of how the government is conducting the nation’s business.  When we see policies that run counter to where we think the country should be headed we have a duty to give voice to our thoughts.  It is most patriotic to write letters to the editor and even to blog our views to the entire world.  To suggest that this honest discussion runs counter to American interests or shows contempt for the President is putting a partisan spin on active citizenship.

I want my President to be actively engaged in understanding the world and forthrightly addressing the complex problems that besiege us.  He must find a resolution to the civil war that is now under way in Iraq and cannot stay the course as we have over the past few years, nor remove our troops in helter-skelter fashion leaving a power vacuum to be filled by elements unsavory to the long-term interests in the region.  He must insure that Iran never has the bomb and do so in a way that does not propel us into a massive military strike with ground troops in that country.  He must address with negotiations not only Iran, but also our nemesis in North Korea as the threat of nuclear proliferation is spreading and international fault lines are growing.  He must pursue with diligence a free and strong Palestine (which he has given lip service to) and work to return our country as an honest broker throughout the Middle East.  He must engage his Administration in South America where strong and robust populism is stirring events that demand out attention.  Finally he needs to be firm with Russia where old ways are being resurrected and in China where rising boldness and tensions need a solid response.

When my President is correct I am there to offer him support and encouragement.  When he is wrong, and he has been misguiding on many issues, he will feel the wrath of this blogger.  But in either case no one should lay claim to being more patriotic or less so by whether or not they support a President or the actions of their country.  To even hint at that shows the person making the statement has no common sense and no clear knowledge of our nations history.

The nation needs Bush to succeed and the world awaits America’s rebirth of leadership, hope, and vision.

Talking To Our Enemies

Perhaps one of the more celebrated examples of opposing nations talking through governmental channels was the “kitchen debate” between Soviet General Secretary Khrushchev and Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1959.  The Cold War was heating up and the Soviet Union and the United States had extremely different perspectives on a wide array of issues.  The U.S. had exhibited fears about Sputnik while the Soviet Union had fears over American military power. After all, we had used the bomb twice at the end of World War II.   The videotape of this encounter between the two men seems so benign and tame today, but the world tensions at the time were real and quite traumatic.

Yet the two sides were able to communicate at various levels over the decades to insure that hostilities would not lead to events that neither side might be able to contain.  Be it the 1960 Cuban missile crises, or the 1973 Middle East War, lessons on the importance of diplomacy seem very clear to this writer.  If it were only so in the Bush White House our world would be in a different spot tonight.

Consider what I think is the most impressive achievement of President Nixon’s time in the Oval Office.  When assuming the duties of President he understood the world dynamics perhaps better than any other politician of his generation.  While Nixon knew that domestic polices needed attention for political reasons his larger goals of better international relations occupied his time, and in the end changed the world.

The opening to China needs to be understood through the lenses of the times.  Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, nor George McGovern could have mastered such a feat without being labeled as ‘soft on communism;’ and suffering dire political consequences.  Only a cold warrior such as Nixon could have achieved the end result of shaking hands with Chairman Mao.

But first Nixon used his incredible knowledge of world history coupled with countless trips aboard prior to even running for President in 1968 to consult with world leaders so to better fine tune and sharpen his agenda.  Once having the oath of office administered Nixon was truly ready to be President.  (Sadly, we really do not make candidates like this anymore in America.)

Nixon fully understood that anyone can talk with their friends but real leadership is talking to one’s opponents.  With the skilled mind of Henry Kissinger a very long and amazing series of back channels and secret communiqués resulted in Nixon taking off from Washington D.C. in 1972 to visit ‘Red China.’  It was the thinking of Nixon and the tenacity of his vision to open doors with our ‘enemy’ that resulted in the Shanghai Communiqué.  Today the world is much more stable and safe as the result of diplomatic relations between our two countries. 

Tonight a bloody and senseless war rages in the Middle East.  Instead of a bold thinker and grand strategist such as Nixon we have the uninspiring Texas phrasing of Bush.  Instead of hard-hitting shuttle diplomacy of a Henry Kissinger we have the tepid hand of Condo Rice on the controls of U.S. diplomacy. 

When she shuffled around the Middle East recently I was aghast at how weak and inferior she looked in her surroundings.  When she shrinks from advising Bush to talk with Syria and Iran I am embarrassed for her and sad for the state of our nation.   When we can no longer even dialogue with those who oppose us what alternatives are left?   If America can no longer lead the world in the dark hours what is to become of the hopes of those we have always inspired?  Where do they now turn when the only face of international maturity and reason turns away?