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
