The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin and Josh Archambault on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This excerpt from President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address sums up U.S. foreign policy from World War II until January, 2009. The foreign policy of being willing and able to support friends and oppose foes to assure the survival of liberty had served the U.S. very well.
The policy had directly led to ending the Cold War without a shot being fired and to the growth of one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel. Despite these great accomplishments, this foreign policy doctrine was inexplicably dropped by the Obama administration; it has been replaced by the Obama doctrine.
The Obama doctrine has several parts to it. Blame the U.S. for many of the world’s problems. Engage in discourse with mad men like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Abandon our allies in Eastern Europe. Assign all blame for the conflict in the Middle East to Israel. Bow and subject oneself to the rulers of other nations. And lastly, ignore other countries’ human rights violations when it’s convenient for Barack Obama.
At a time when the U.S. needs to stand tall in Asia and send a message to China that it will protect democracy and liberty in places like Japan and Taiwan, President Obama is too afraid to recognize the grave human rights violations that have been committed in Tibet by the Chinese. What sort of message does this send to the Chinese people? What sort of message does this send to Kim Jong-il?
The Obama doctrine on human rights was first revealed during a tour of East Asia in February by Secretary Clinton who, when responding to a question pertaining the leveraging of human rights violations as a bargaining chip with the Chinese, laid out the Administration’s position. Clinton stated, “Our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Scholars from both the right and left considered this public pronouncement jarring for two reasons. Firstly, was she implying that the Chinese people’s liberty and the Chinese government’s human rights violations were not a major priority for President Obama? Simply put, Secretary Clinton was setting up a false dichotomy between the two issues.
To be fair, since the opening of China under President Nixon, past administrations have also paid insufficient attention to human rights when negotiating with China. However, with that being said, for most students of American foreign policy, Clinton’s standpoint was quite disconcerting.
Secondly, a foreign policy in which the U.S. does not strongly pressure a tyrannical regime on human rights is fundamentally different from one that doesn’t raise the issue at all. Some have termed this as a “unilateral moral disarmament.” As much as the Administration may hope otherwise, given the latest violence in Xinjiang and ongoing strain in Tibet, it appears that human rights will remain near the top of the global consciousness in the near future for China.
It would therefore makes sense for the President to articulate to Chinese leaders that America will maintain a robust commitment to freedom worldwide and not lose moral ground by backing down. President Obama and his advisors must ask themselves if trying to be the anti-Bush President is worth the reversal of 50 years of precedent first articulated by JFK. The U.S. should not risk losing its standing in the minds of oppressed people across the globe.
