Capitalism vs. Human Rights? It's Not That Simple
Posted on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
At daily kos, the very fine writer Devil's Tower makes the same type of error that the Far Right does when discussing foreign policy, human rights and free markets. Except in reverse. DT writes:
[S]omewhere along the line, we had made a mental connection between capitalism and freedom. Anything good for one was seen as good for the other. We viewed liberty and greed as soul mates. Often enough, we couldn't tell one from the other, and in that confusion we ignored the other half of the struggle -- the one being waged by that still wet behind the ears idea, democracy. In short, we bought our own press.
Fair enough. The silly notion that capitalism and "trade" will necessarily translate into freedom is pernicious. But we can and should recognize this as propaganda while still understanding that both freedom and liberalization of markets will be, in the long run, beneficial to US interests. BTW, it is ALSO propaganda when we discuss it in terms of traditional pet Left causes like lifting the embargo in Cuba (NOTE: I favor lifting the Cuba embargo, but not because it promises freedom for Cuba but because it is an ineffective foreign policy). But we must ALSO understand that a policy for human rights must be tempered by the realities of the national interests of the United States. After all, no one can deny that Iraq is more free today after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. But it also can not be denied that the US is much worse off because of the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the US. More . . .
It is my view that a more free world is almost invariably of benefit to the interests of the United States. In the short term, we do not always get what we want, but in the long term it is good policy for the US. Unlike most of you, I also believe that liberalization of global markets is also, on the balance in the best interest of the United States and the World - living standards across the world rise as trade is liberalized.
But, as in all things, nuance is a must. Balance and consideration of all factors must be maintained in all good policy. DT loses that balance when he writes:
The 1989 protests at Tianamen Square weren't an international incident in the sense of armies clashing on a field. It was much more important than that. In 1989, China was then still experimenting with how the "free market" and an authoritarian government could co-exist. They made their moves with one eye on the dancing students, and one eye on the western world. What they learned that spring was the truth about the west. They learned the capitalism has not just defeated communism, it had also defeated all the ideals of democracy. They learned that we would put up with anything, even the brutal killing of thousands of innocents, if it meant $50 VCRs and cheap socks at Walmart.
(Emphasis supplied.) Is that what Tianaman meant? Really? Was it REALLY about $50 VCRs and cheap socks in 1989? That is simply not true. The China of 1989 was not the China of today. The real issue on how the West could respond to Tianaman was much different than that. It is revisionist history to pretend it was about cheap socks. The world is never that simple:
In the days immediately following the crackdown, U.S. and Chinese officials were already sensitive to how recent events would impact the bilateral relationship. On June 5, President Bush had announced the imposition of a package of sanctions on China, to include "suspension of all government-to-government sales and commercial exports of weapons," and the "suspension of visits between U.S. and Chinese military leaders." Document 32, an embassy cable sent three weeks later, notes that a military official had lodged a formal complaint that "strongly protested recent U.S. military sanctions," and had canceled the planned visits of U.S. military officials. Embassy officials felt this to be a "measured response to U.S. sanctions," indicating that the official "did not adopt a confrontational attitude and emphasized that both sides should take a long-term view of the military relationship." Two days later, on June 29, the State Department prepared "Themes," (Document 33), in support of Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who were to leave the next day on a secret trip to China to meet with Deng Xiaoping. "Themes" provided the framework for the discussions the two emissaries would have with Deng. It focused on the global strategic benefits of the U.S.-PRC relationship for both sides, the impact Chinese "internal affairs" could have on the relationship (characterizing the American people as being "shocked and repelled by much of what they have seen and read about recent events in China"), Bush's view of the importance of the long-term relationship between the US and PRC, and the impact that further repression could have on US relations with China. As Scowcroft later remembered, "The purpose of my trip ... was not negotiations--there was nothing yet to negotiate--but an effort to keep open the lines of communication."6
(Emphasis supplied.) If I could, I would ask Devil's Tower this question, what course of action would he have recommended the United States take in response to Tiananmen? Life and the world are NOT black and white. It is gray. It is ironic that Devil's Tower recognized how the Progressive Movement of the Early 20th Century and the New Deal understood the need to temper capitalism in order to save it - that it was not black and white:
In competition with communism, capitalism in Europe and America had to clean up its act. What we live with today in most of the western world is capitalism with many of its sharpest edges blunted. Thousands of workers died to wear down those edges. People respond to incentives. With the worst aspects of capitalism softened, the vague (and ever receding) promises of communism turned out to be a miserable way to organize and motivate people when compared to the personal, immediate gain possible in capitalism.
FDR understood life is not either/or (witness the alliance with Stalin against Hitler). Devil's Tower seems not to. Here he criticizes Germany for not being more belligerent towards Russia, blaming capitalism:
In 1984, East Germany controlled 30% of the territory that now makes up Germany. In the face of this occupation, Germany was a staunch opponent of Soviet policies. In 2008, Russia supplies 40% of the natural gas that powers German factories and homes. That's great, but as a result, Germany tends to keep its mouth shut on Russian activities.
The passage is perhaps DT's silliest. When Russia occupied East Germany, it was a military threat to West Germany. Its policy of opposition to the country threatening it was perfectly understandable, indeed, inexorable. DT seems to forget that German unification itself was bitterly opposed by the Soviet Union and tepidly supported by the US. West Germany did it despite what the US and Russia wanted. Capitalism had nothi9ng to do with it.
In short, it's not that simple.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
| < Recap of Obama-McCain Faith Forum | Would Republican Voters Embrace a Pro-Choice VP? > |
