What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Shame of the Obama administration

The Obama administration had done, and attempted to do, many shameful things. This most recent one brings shame on America in the eyes of the whole world.

The latest news I have in the case of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng is here.The previous news just before that is here.

Briefly: Blind activist Chen Guangcheng, who has exposed and criticized China's forced-abortion policy, dramatically escaped from house arrest and was transported by friends to the U.S. embassy. He had to leave his wife and child behind, however. While in the U.S. embassy, he was pressured by U.S. officials to leave. The officials faithfully relayed threats from the despicable Communist Chinese government to beat his wife to death if he did not leave. Eventually he agreed to leave and go to the hospital to be treated for an injury sustained in the course of his escape. He agreed to this partly because of the threats and partly because of a promise from the U.S. that American officials would stay with him in the hospital. Our government then betrayed him, and the Americans mysteriously melted away from the hospital.

(By the way, see here for a correction to a media story being relayed all over, including in the above stories: Chen did not send a message to Hilary Clinton that he wanted to "kiss" her.)

More: The despicable Communist Chinese government is demanding an apology for our even allowing Chen into the embassy. Well, we aren't quite giving them that, but we are giving them a promise that the "incident" will not be repeated. Got that? We're promising to abandon Chen entirely and not to let him into the embassy should he manage to escape again. But why would he bother? We already betrayed him once.

And now he's appealing to Obama to get him and his family out of China? He can't really mean that. Surely he's realized the truth by now.

Obama has brought dishonor on us all by this treacherous treatment of a brave man.

America used to be a city on a hill. The light has been quenched. May God have mercy on us and protect Chen Guangcheng

Comments (61)

Um, Americans are known for such behavior and have been for their whole history. The only the that makes Chen different than, say, Gunaluska, is that Chen thought you were ideological allies. Gunaluska literally pulled Jackson from certain death, and we know how Andy showed his gratitude.

Yeah, we gave him land and when he died the Daughters erected a statue in his honor. He lived for 44 years after the battle at Horseshoe Bend. Oh, and he's buried with his wife, who, oddly enough for your narrative, was not beaten to death by henchmen of the American government nor threatened with same. Another moral equivalency fail.

Thank you, David Brandt.

was not beaten to death by henchmen of the American government nor threatened with same

No, she would have been shot dead had she resisted the soldiers trying to force her off her land. In that sense, our thugs are at least more civilized than their thugs. The Supreme Court was also on the side of the Cherokee, so she would have been shot dead for actually obeying the law.

Obama has brought dishonor on us all by this treacherous treatment of a brave man.

Obama has violated almost every single campaign promise he made (certainly all of the anti-Bush ones), run one of the most extraordinarily anti-democratic regimes in modern American history, done his best to run the economy off the cliff and has shown a level of character that makes Henry Kissinger look like a candidate for literal sainthood. Yet, he's still competitive with anyone other than zombie Stalin or Hugo Chavez.

That, right there, speaks to a far worse state of American culture.

Yes, Mike.
And as we all know you are a moral authority that is difficult to beat.

I fail to see how anonymous skirted the edge here. All he/she implied was that this shooter [Breivik] and your typical antifascist youth [peaceful teenagers affiliated with Norway's mainstream Labour Party] are two sides of the same coin.

And here is what "Anonymous" said:

They're lethal little things, not harmless little puppies. That's not to say that the bomber didn't do a horrible thing. He did. What he did was an atrocity. But those youth aren't completely innocent either. A sizeable proportion of them are disturbing and dangerous. Many of them persecute and terrorize conservatives due to "hate speech" and "crime thought".

As long as you do not apologize for that, Mike, stop talking about "character".

We are _not_ going to go OT talking about everybody else's character here.

It's amazing. Liberals just do not want to stick to the topic.

Has anyone noticed that just maybe, just perhaps, Chen's connection with (gasp) anti-abortion activism might have something to do with this. Nah. We don't want to talk about that, either. We want to talk about everything else and the kitchen sink.

As long as you do not apologize for that, Mike, stop talking about "character".

What's the matter Grobi, Miniluv reject your latest job application?

Moral Equivalency for who? I don't think you know what that word means.

And He-who-could-not was one name chosen for many, many people, who with their wives and children, would be tortured in some creatively low-class ways, even unto death. If I knew a Kurdish name with that kind of power, I might have thrown it in their as well.

That American Rhetoric about American Ideals rarely reflects anything like American Action in the face of reality is actually a pretty long-running criticism. How insular do you have to be to be surprised at it?

The notion that you had any land you could give him is beneath response.

The notion that you had any land you could give him is beneath response.

By definition giving them the land in Oklahoma was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I don't really see the great problem. Chen criticized his government and when the inevitable retaliation came he wanted asylum from the US embassy, which is understandably not in the business of providing asylum to anyone who has made trouble for themselves. What duty does the US embassy have to jeopardize relations with China over one person.

Now, the embassy shouldn't have promised something it couldn't deliver, but I don't think that is at the heart of the outrage.

How about something it apparently had no intention of delivering.

My reading of the situation with Chen is that the only bad actor is the Chinese government. And that on two counts: it's forced abortion policies and its persecution of the dissenter Chen.

I want a moral response from the US government now that it (and us) has been drawn in by the actions Chen and the Chinese govern met. How to analyze it to determine what that manorial response should be? In the Catholic tradition, specific corporal and spiritual works of mercy have been delineated. Those can be clear guides here.

One of the corporal works of mercy is to ransom the captive and I think with Clinton and Geithner over there now, an attempt ought to be made to ransom Chen (and his family) who does seem to be a captive. What would that entail? I can't say but it would, of course, have to be in some measure proportionate. Taking troublesome Chen off their hands certainly would do it. Giving up critical leverage against S. Korea probably would be too high a price.

One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner, the Chinese government in this case. Tell them in no uncertain terms that forced abortion and persecution of dissenters is wrong, that the American people think it is wrong, and that excellent relations cannot exist without an agreement on that. Not a likely scenario given what the present administration values, the laws of the land, and the near certainty of "Hypocrite!" being hurled back.

Of course, prayer is a moral response available to everyone.

Appealing to American-Indian relations during the War of 1812 is pretty much sticking one's head in the dirt.

Appealing to American-Indian relations during the War of 1812 is pretty much sticking one's head in the dirt.

How about our not so subtle suggestions to the Kurds ~1991 that got them gassed?

Spell check zapped me in that post. Manorial should read "moral". Sheesh...

Hez, I continue to be surprised by the obstinate moral obtuseness of people who seem to consider themselves moral arbiters.

It's okay for us to give Chen up to the Chicoms because we were imperfect two hundred years ago and thus irredeemably evil, see? Surprising, yet tedious and predictable and unexciting and one big yawn. Gosh, Washington owned slaves! Imagine a decent person wanting to stay in a country with a Founder like that! Why, that makes Chen the most evil actor in this whole drama, since he actually wants to flee noble China and take refuge in the evil US! So let the Chicoms kill him and beat his wife as threatened, too. And, Hezekiah's God willing, may the Chinese come wipe us all out too, leaving only the Creek and Cherokee alive to dwell in brotherly love & peace.

It's okay for us to give Chen up to the Chicoms because we were imperfect two hundred years ago and thus irredeemably evil, see?

I think Hez's point is that for the last 200 years, the US has been at best a totally chicken#$%^ ally to people ranging from the Cherokee, to the Montagnards, to the Kurds, to Chinese dissidents. At times, such as when Kissinger sold out the Christians in East Timor to the Indonesians, we've been downright treacherous. You might say this is a sin of which we've never repented.

Yes, yes political realities and all that. However, if we're going to play realpolitik, we should do so with the unmasked cruelty of Bismarck or Kissinger instead of masking it with idealistic rhetoric.

My reading of the situation with Chen is that the only bad actor is the Chinese government.

Alphonsus, there I disagree. The U.S. government has also been a bad actor, on three counts:

1) Its agents pressured Chen to leave the embassy rather than welcoming him. He is deserving of a welcome which he was not given.

2) Its agents pretty obviously cynically lied to Chen and betrayed him by convincing him to leave on the basis of a promise (to stay with him in the hospital and protect him) they had no intention of fulfilling or knew they had no power to fulfill. This is really the worst and looks horribly like being in cahoots with the Chinese government to get over the "embarrassment" of Chen's having escaped to the embassy and to return him to the power of his ruthless government.

3) The government has now promised the Chinese government there will be "no repeat" of the "incident" even of the few days' sanctuary Chen was given, meaning he will never be let into the embassy again, at least under this administration.

That's bad acting, in my book.

Add to that the following sin of omission:

--The Obama administration clearly has no intention of pressuring the Chinese government to let Chen and his family go and refused to exercise such pressure to free his wife and child when they were vulnerable and Chen was in the embassy.

Mike T, I don't see the relevance of the Kurds in 1991 to the present issues surrounding Chen.

Matt, your cynical take is pretty much beneath an answer, but I'll give it one anyway:


which is understandably not in the business of providing asylum to anyone who has made trouble for themselves.

True in the abstract, but we should be in the business of providing asylum to some highly deserving people who are fighting Communist tyranny, and I think men of good will should be able to see that Chen is one of them.

The morally neutral "making trouble for themselves" talk is frankly despicable. It implies that there are no such things as highly praiseworthy actions of criticizing totalitarian tyranny, that everyone living under such tyranny more or less deserves what they get if they dare to stand up for right and freedom. People who think that way need to examine themselves carefully and ask themselves: "What sort of person am I that, instead of admiring Chen and seeing clearly the evil of the regime persecuting him, I see him as just some guy who has made trouble for himself unnecessarily?"

What duty does the US embassy have to jeopardize relations with China over one person.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe a duty that arises from small facts like the fact that he's good and his government is evil, that his government _should_ be pressured to change. But who cares about that, right?

Now, the embassy shouldn't have promised something it couldn't deliver,

It's called lying, Matt. And they did it to get rid of him so as to make nicey with his Communist oppressors. Yeah, that's pretty darned outrageous.

Ok, so it would have been better to forcibly eject him without ceremony. No duplicity involved there. For the rest, you envision a role for the US government as moral crusader against evil to which I can't sign on. That just isn't what governments or embassies are for.

So on your view, Matt, political asylum shouldn't even exist as a category?

People need to be capable of recognizing history in the making and pivotal moments of crisis in which men's souls are gained or lost. There needs to be an ability to read a story like this and to be struck by the resemblance to Pontius Pilate (though even that may be too flattering a comparison). When we are so cynical that a story like this does not shock or move us because it "wasn't our business" to help someone like Chen, we have lost an important ability to be moved by story, by good and evil, by the claims upon us of the voice of God. That voice not infrequently speaks in the language of a confrontation with an unexpected demand that calls for integrity and a small modicum of willingness to stick out one's neck or to be inconvenienced. I fear for the souls of those in the embassy who have participated in what has just happened.

If there were some situation of mass anarchy and mayhem in China, akin to the Cultural Revolution, then political asylum might make some sense. But this is one person, who criticized an admittedly terrible policy, and then ran for it when the inevitable crackdown came. I do not think the US government should be in the business of saving the rest of the world from itself. If the Chinese have a problem with how Chen was treated then they can act against their government. If not, then it is not our business or in our interest to start an international incident when there is absolutely nothing we can realistically do against the Chinese government. There is evil everywhere, but I'd rather we not go abroad in search of monsters to slay.

Ok, so it would have been better to forcibly eject him without ceremony. No duplicity involved there. For the rest, you envision a role for the US government as moral crusader against evil to which I can't sign on. That just isn't what governments or embassies are for.

Matt, if he gets to the embassy, then that is one of their purposes. It is technically the same as if he escaped and showed up in Los Angeles. He is on US soil and we have laws that describe when we offer asylum to people. I don't see why Chen doesn't meet the requirements. Someone escaping to our territory is not the US gov't going about on a moral crusade. I assume you believe we should have returned anyone who escaped from East Berlin to West Berlin.

If there were some situation of mass anarchy and mayhem in China, akin to the Cultural Revolution, then political asylum might make some sense

Why? In any event, this would be more likely to land us with so many people seeking asylum that we would be overwhelmed and damage our own ability to be of help to some. If anything it's more defensible to help people on a case-by-case basis when we can figure out that they aren't spies or something like that. The specific, well-known, worthy individual who is in danger for virtuous actions against tyranny should be considered a paradigm case for offering asylum.

But this is one person, who criticized an admittedly terrible policy, and then ran for it when the inevitable crackdown came.

No, actually, he's been under this crackdown for years. And this blaming the victim of totalitarianism meme is more unpleasant the more times you utter it. Amazing that you cannot hear yourself.

I do not think the US government should be in the business of saving the rest of the world from itself.

Right, and helping one brave man and his family is _obviously_ tantamount to trying to save the rest of the world from itself.

If not, then it is not our business or in our interest to start an international incident when there is absolutely nothing we can realistically do against the Chinese government.

Actually, there are several things we can do. Helping Chen and family is a good thing in and of itself, a concept you seem incapable of grasping. Defunding the UNFPA is another thing we can do against the Chinese government.

I'd rather we not go abroad in search of monsters to slay.

We didn't. A fugitive from Communist tyranny, a man in danger because of his great and virtuous works fighting that tyranny, came to us. We betrayed him. You don't care, and stipulate only that it would have been somewhat better had we thrown him back to the wolves post-haste at the outset rather than betraying him after six days. I get that. But you should hear it for what it is.

He is on US soil and we have laws that describe when we offer asylum to people.

Ok, what are they? This is the first I have heard here about a law that ought to have been followed, which is more useful than righteous fulmination.

From wikipedia:

The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As defined by these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are further obliged not to return or "refoul" refugees to the place where they would face persecution. This commitment was codified and expanded with the passing of the Refugee Act of 1980 by the United States Congress. Besides reiterating the definitions of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol, the Refugee Act provided for the establishment of an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) to help refugees begin their lives in the U.S. The structure and procedures evolved and by 2004, federal handling of refugee affairs was led by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) of the U.S. Department of State, working with the ORR at HHS. Asylum claims are mainly the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Matt, I would defend the decision of returning him if he had just shot his mouth off and was now in trouble. But the man spent four years in prison, has been beaten since being released, and was basically under house arrest when he escaped.

Maybe a little more research would be wise.

Why would I research an aspect of the story I was not aware of until now? Perhaps I am to conjure the truth up ex nihilo. Perhaps it would have been useful for the original post?

If the convention requires us to confer refugee status upon any political dissident that reaches an embassy, then that is what we must do. Yet another good reason not to be in the UN.

Mike T, I don't see the relevance of the Kurds in 1991 to the present issues surrounding Chen.

It's yet another example of the US behaving dishonorably toward weaker groups who took our side. We did that with the Cherokee, the Montagnards, various dissidents and others. The point is that our habit of making big promises in the name of liberty then either abandoning or back-stabbing those who side with us is hardly limited to the 19th century. In fact, in the 19th century we had the decency to be a lot more forthright about our overall intentions.

Oh, for crying out loud, Matt, if you don't know who Chen Guangcheng is, there's this marvellous invention, the name of which rhymes with shmoogle, that you should be able to use to find out more about this person I referred to in the main post as a Chinese activist. You could find out more about him and his long-term, on-going situation in approximately three minutes. Some of us follow world news related to the Chinese forced abortion policy and have therefore known about him for years. Maybe you and rhymes-with-shmoogle should get better acquainted. One ought to be able to write a blog post about a hot story without spelling out all the background for one's readers as if one were writing a book.

But the obvious truth is that you don't give a damn. It's not like you've troubled to hide that.

Up with righteous fulmination. It's better than soul-destroying cynicism and indifference any day.

Mike T.,

Can I just say that while the U.S. is by no means perfect (what government is?) I take offense at your remarks that the U.S. has never helped weak allies. Not everyone in WWII liberated from Japanese and German oppression was weak, but they certainly needed our help (and most appreciate it to this day). Likewise with the South Koreans.

Also, the Kurds today are much more sanguine about their future thanks to W. finally taking care of Saddam (if their own leaders were so corrupt and morally bankrupt).

So we have helped weak allies in the past and have been a force for good in the world at times. Not always and not consistently. But we have a lot to be proud of as a nation.

A more recent link from the same news source:
http://news.yahoo.com/activist-pleads-us-help-leave-china-024959419.html

Speaking to AFP on Thursday, Chen said he did not initially want to seek asylum overseas, but changed his mind after emerging from the embassy due to concern for his safety and that of his family.

The officials faithfully relayed threats from the despicable Communist Chinese government to beat his wife to death if he did not leave.

I read the links you provided, plus the updated version, and this is an unsupportable statement. Chen was able to communicate with other Chinese activists while inside the embassy, so even if he was told by someone that his family was under threat of death, you haven't shown that it was a US official. We don't know for certain that he was told this by anyone while in the embassy, frankly. What does seem reasonable to assume is that he had concerns about the safety of his family, he also knew that there was zero chance of the US being able to protect them if he left the country. He may have been hoping the high-profile nature of his case would give the US some leverage to extract some safety guarantees if he stayed in China, but he also had to know from his own dealings with the Chinese government that was a long shot.

Well, we aren't quite giving them that, but we are giving them a promise that the "incident" will not be repeated.

The wording was "an extraordinary circumstance with very unusual parameters, and we don't expect it to be repeated". Which is factually true if somewhat weasel worded, how many people would expect a blind person to escape house arrest in Communist China? I would have to go with nobody would "expect" it.

So this is a fine mess. I'm fairly sure you can only request political asylum for yourself once on American land, not for your family on foreign land. I don't think he made the right choice in going back to his family to be perfectly honest, neither he nor they are any safer.

Mike T, perhaps this is just a bad brain day for me (they happen, actually more often than I like as time goes on!). I do not grasp how Chen qualifies as a weaker groups who has taken our side. Chen wants the US to take his side in this affair which seems to grow increasingly bizarre as more news stories roll out. Apparently he called the Congressional Executive Commission on China (where'd he get the phone number?) today to ask it to ensure his escape to the US. He said, among other reasons, that he wanted to come to the US for some rest because he has not rested for 10 years, according to this story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57427475-503544/chen-makes-direct-appeal-to-congress-to-come-to-united-states

I get the gnawing feeling that someone is being played for a sucker in all this because so many things do not add up. Maybe you are right. "We" have betrayed another weak person who has come to our side and helped us. But I just don't see it. What I intuit is a possible smoke screen to hide something else going on over there between the Chinese and American governments.

Why would I research an aspect of the story I was not aware of until now? Perhaps I am to conjure the truth up ex nihilo. Perhaps it would have been useful for the original post?

If the convention requires us to confer refugee status upon any political dissident that reaches an embassy, then that is what we must do. Yet another good reason not to be in the UN.

Matt, all you have proven is that you are not only ignorant but unashamedly so. You didn't know whether there are laws or conventions or standards about how to handle refugees, so you shot your mouth off without considering whether there were or not, and when you were shown up your protest about it is just stupidity squared.

For your information, belonging to the UN is not the same thing as being a signatory to the 1951 convention.

If not, then it is not our business or in our interest to start an international incident when there is absolutely nothing we can realistically do against the Chinese government.

Generally, we don't help people in trouble in foreign countries merely because they are in that foreign country. We (rightly) take the attitude that internal affairs of a foreign country are their affair. But a person who is in our embassy is in OUR country. We had no business treating his problems with China as if it were nothing to do with us. Once he was on our soil (our embassy), we should have taken the position CHINA should butt out, it should not embroil itself in OUR affairs. We failed to uphold simple international standards and our own national standing. We acted like a weak, sycophantic courtier to a more powerful lord. Bad precedent. If we had simply upheld that international standard for a month or two, we could have then begun quiet negotiations to get his family out of China along with Chen, to some willing recipient country (if we were unwilling to take him ourselves). We lost tons of face over this with the Chinese, who will be laughing at us up their sleeves for years. Obama did us no political good.

I'm fairly sure you can only request political asylum for yourself once on American land, not for your family on foreign land.

Step2, my family was involved in helping a refugee family who had requested (and received) refugee status before they were on US soil. So I think you have it wrong. Generally, I think, refugee status can
be conferred for political asylum cases wherever the person is in the world, though it won't usually be conferred if the person is in detainment in their home country. Other types of refugee status may be more stringently applied, but (at our discretion) political asylum cases are pretty open - we can decide to grant it to persons we want, even if they don't meet some standard criteria.

I agree that this guy probably made the wrong choice in going to the hospital, but he probably made the wrong choice in going to the US embassy under Obama. He would have been better off going to the Swiss or Hungarian embassy, more than likely. More shame on us, for that.

Liberal? What does that word mean in Lydia's world?

I've never seen it attached to a pre-modern/anti-modern like me before.

No, David Brandt, what America has done to Chen is at least as disgraceful as how the chicoms treat him, simply because chicoms don't run their mouths about shining cities on hills.

It's a stupid mistake but ideologues are prone to: just because I'm agin' you doesn't mean I side with whoever you imagine your enemy to be.

Because you all sound like liberals of one stripe or another.

Except Culbreath. Y'all will run him off eventually though.

Are Americans always going to hold up their actions in the War to Make the World Safe for Communism as their proof of goodness?

It could be that indifference or even hostility to the reason why Chen sought asylum at the U.S. embassy explains why he was pushed out. I might be wrong, but I assume than an anti-abortion activist wouldn't have much leverage in the considerations of Hillary Clinton.

Had he been a Muslim activist who claimed that the Chinese authorities were persecuting him, maybe the outcome would have been different.


Liberal? What does that word mean in Lydia's world?

The word 'liberal' - like 'education' and 'reform' - has a built-in notion that something worthwhile is going on. That's why I don't think it's an appropriate description of the people who run almost everything in Western societies. On the political front what 'liberal' means in the United States I think Europeans would correctly call 'socialist', or more colloquially, a 'lefty'.

Barack Obama's administration leans to the left. It isn't 'liberal', it's leftist.

(Excuse my off topic comment and pedantic folly this morning.)

Can I just say that while the U.S. is by no means perfect (what government is?) I take offense at your remarks that the U.S. has never helped weak allies. Not everyone in WWII liberated from Japanese and German oppression was weak, but they certainly needed our help (and most appreciate it to this day). Likewise with the South Koreans.

Did I say never?

Also, the reason the Kurds are confident now has more to do with the fact that they learned from the 1991 atrocities by forming their now infamous "Peshmerga" units. By some estimates, they have now raised a fighting force as large as the Iraqi Army and this is one of the reasons Iran is so upset about Iraq. Our own Special Forces have repeatedly said that the Peshmerga, soldier to soldier, are every bit as good at modern warfare as the average US soldier if not the average Ranger.

In fact, the Kurds were so independently powerful on their own that they offered to send a few tens of thousands of their troops to crush Fallujah but W was too limp-wristed to even use that as a way to threaten Fallujah into surrender.

Mike T, perhaps this is just a bad brain day for me (they happen, actually more often than I like as time goes on!). I do not grasp how Chen qualifies as a weaker groups who has taken our side.

Chen made a very bad assumption, namely that the US Government actually believes its own rhetoric about human rights violations. He is against forced abortions and assumed based on our past noise that our government would take his side because not only is this a serious and pervasive problem in China, but China is a sufficiently serious competitor that we might be motivated to stick our neck out for him.

Poor man couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Obama did him as dishonorably as H.W. did the Kurds when he encouraged them to rise up against Hussein without our military's support.

"I've never seen it attached to a pre-modern/anti-modern like me before."

Get used to it. Here's how it works: left-liberals are just "liberals." Right-liberals are "conservatives." But because anti-modernist conservatives have certain ideas in common with left-liberals (notably suspicion of globalism, consumerism and capitalism) these ideas are deemed "liberal," even when bona-fide conservatives hold them.

Re: China, I suggest a conservative boycott of WalMart. Everytime you buy something there, you might as well be sending a donation to the ChiCom government.

Tony, if the original post had laid out some kind of legal case then your opprobrium would be justified, but it was instead full of city-on-a-hill blather and eeeevil China propaganda.

I will say that there is probably no way Chen actually believed that the US could just send armed guards anywhere it wants in China. China is not a US possession. They obviously just wanted to get rid of him. The moral of the story is that if you live in China, don't criticize the government unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences. If you can escape once the crackdown comes, then great, but don't count on it and don't expect anyone to be obliged to help you. This is just good sense, especially when you have a family to worry about.

And why is everyone talking about Obama? Was he personally involved? Maybe I'll get harassed again for not googling here.

That America cannot possibly be a force for good in the world, because it is a product of the so-called Enlightenment and thus is forever Modern, is an amusing conceit. If wishes were horses, beggars would eat. Horses exist, therefore beggars should not be hungry. Hunger therefore is a product of Modernism. I dunno, I'm trying for a moment to imagine what it must be like to let oneself become so unmoored from reality, a happily certain Hanwellian.

Anyway, the idea that Obama would risk one little Made in China trinket for a pro-life activist and his possibly not yet beaten to death by the government wife is, je ne sais quois, just not Realpolitik. It is, plainly, as Lydia's title says, shameful. But we sound less provincially American when we toss in some European words, and that implicit condemnation of plain English is part and parcel of our argument, which itself is mere animus.

Yes, imagine Chen as a Muslim activist. Maybe that would get CAIR stirred up, and maybe Obama would sound a little less uninterested in whether the Chicoms beat Mrs Chen to death.

But imagine instead: were Chen a gay-rights activist, and the commies threatening to beat his husband to death, would Obama not then stand, unyielding, upon bedrock principle? Oh, my, yes indeedy. And who among the America-is-evil gang would not find himself muttering, half in astonishment, "for the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American," or even, "for the first time in my life, I speculate that it may be that the United States is not the very worst manifestation of Modernism that it is possible for the human mind to conceive!"

"That America cannot possibly be a force for good in the world, because it is a product of the so-called Enlightenment and thus is forever Modern, is an amusing conceit."

Boy, that's a big raging stiffy of a herring-esque false dichotomy.

Tony, if the original post had laid out some kind of legal case then your opprobrium would be justified

Because only positive law can possibly justify moral outrage? That's quite a theory. And people call _me_ a legal positivist.

I will say that there is probably no way Chen actually believed that the US could just send armed guards anywhere it wants in China.

Yeah, so he's just deceiving us when he implies that he was unpleasantly surprised when the Americans melted away from the hospital. Clever little man, he is. And saying that makes the cynical feel better.


The moral of the story is that if you live in China, don't criticize the government unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences.

_You_, Matt, are talking about morals? So _that's_ the moral of the story. Shrug. He had it comin' to him. Whaddaya expect if you criticize a totalitarian government? We don't care. It's not our business.


If you can escape once the crackdown comes, then great, but don't count on it and don't expect anyone to be obliged to help you.

He did escape. Very dramatically in the night and after a ruse to make his guards think he had grown weak in captivity. He was driven a long way by brave friends (who thought they were obliged to help him) to the American embassy, where we _could_ have simply kept him and pressured the Chinese government to release his family, and we would have done so had this particular administration not preferred to kow-tow to the wicked government that was pursuing him.

Honestly, Matt, you're the worst commentator on this thread, and I don't know why I respond to you. Your cynicism shows an ugliness of thought and a shallowness of perception that are dangerous. You show a complete inability to distinguish good from evil, or, in any event, to care about the distinction. Indeed, the very word "evil" is just something for you to mock.

You might want to think about this, for your own sake. You're going in the wrong direction. Utter callousness and an inability to recognize litmus test situations are the kinds of things that can get you in big trouble in the long run. And I don't mean with the government. I mean with someone a lot higher up than any government. Every once in a while it's a good idea to ask oneself, "What am I becoming?"

Nice Mixed Metaphormot, if I have incorrectly diagnosed the particular lens through which Hez views America as acting wrongly if it should seek to prevent Mrs Chen's head being bashed in, I am sure there's bound to be someone who will fake an interest in your lengthy disquisition nuancing the various evils of modernism, America, Americans, Jacksonians and whatnot that I am simply far too oblivious, or insufficiently self-loathingly American, to grasp.

But, y'know, at the end of the day, if we are unable to prevent a child dying of [insert name of malady] over there in [insert name of country so poor they eat rocks because they aren't even dirt poor], then we shouldn't lift an eyebrow to hint at disapprobation of another country's treatment of its own citizens, should we? At least not till we burn Andrew Jackson in effigy, take Washington and Jefferson off our fiat money, and have our president bow to whichever dictators he hasn't knelt before yet.

I know, a string of non sequiturs that misses the very apt, succinct, limpid, and twoo so twoo points your allies in anti-Americanism are making.

But it's you guys who are posting the absurd non sequiturs, and you are resilient in not getting it. The commies- any government- threatening, as a matter of state policy, to beat up the wife of a troublesome citizen- that is actually a bad thing. That it seems to hurt you guys, personally, like a knife to the heart, that Mr Chen failed to flee to the Cuban or Venezuelan or Zimbabwean or North Korean embassy- that's not relevant in the least little bit. Guy comes to your door, says the guy across the street is threatening him. You offer him shelter, or you tell him to get off your lawn or else the neighbor's going to beat his wife? Doesn't matter that you regularly beat your wife during the Super Bowl. You still have a duty to help him and his wife.

I'm just simplistic. Sorry.

Surprisingly enough perhaps, I agree with you, David. What I was objecting to is the notion that belief in (A)the problematic nature of certain Enlightenment aspects of the founding is inevitably tied up with (B)some sort of belief in moral equivalence. One can certainly believe A without continuing on to B. And of course there are any number of folks who believe B but do not locate the cause in A.

Nice Mixed Metaphormot

very well played

Hez, and to a lesser extent, NM:

Why is the tone of everything you post on this thread so convoluted and bitter? I _think_ you agree with me that our foreign office did something truly disgraceful in its treatment of Chen, something that brings shame to America. Why does that have to be disentangled from a lot of other stuff? Why can't you agree with me here more straightforwardly?

I imagine there are plenty of Crunchy Cons or Distributists or whatever you consider yourselves who could do so. I hope so, anyway.

Presumably we disagree about economics. I know that's true of NM. Well and good. This post isn't about economics (you may have noticed).

Is the problem that I used, without irony, the metaphor of a city on the hill? Is there some kind of rule in Distributist World that says, "Never seem to be finding real common ground with anyone who says something Ronald Reagan once said"? Is that it? Is it that I'm not sufficiently loathing of American throughout her long history, that I have some idea that we _ever_ provided hope to people fleeing tyranny? Gee, yeah, I guess a post like this is just a great opportunity for launching into a long debate on the entire history of America so that I'll get rid of whatever residual patriotism I might still have. Is it just, darn it, that the mainstream right in this country probably would agree with me in an uncomplicated manner and are reacting to this betrayal of a pro-life activist by a left-wing administration with simple horror and outrage, and you simply _must_ distance yourself from those danged neo-con "right liberals" by saying something bitter, ironic, and smacking of moral equivalence instead?

If you don't want people to think of you as reflexive lefty, try not leaving a comment footprint that makes you sound like one.

By the way, I know of absolutely no one who would say that because of its Enlightenment beginnings America can do "no good" in the world. That's a pretty strong claim. A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?

Generally, I think, refugee status can be conferred for political asylum cases wherever the person is in the world, though it won't usually be conferred if the person is in detainment in their home country.

Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with that policy, since I'm not a fan of unenforceable situations where the refugees are under the physical control of another government while we claim a sort of legal control over them.

You still have a duty to help him and his wife.

Sure we have a duty to help his wife, but not at the risk of destroying the whole neighborhood. I'll reiterate a point I made above, Chen didn't request political asylum when he got to our embassy. He may have had good reasons not to ask for asylum, but until he did ask our legal ability to help him is seriously compromised. I'm trying to imagine what you think we should do, send in Seal Team Six to extricate his whole family? That could literally be the start of WW3.

There are three other points worth making. First, contra Alex, Hilary Clinton has been vocal in her support of Chen previously, which you would know if you read the news articles. Second, the Chinese government in recent decades has not had a problem with imprisoning or killing tens of thousands of its own citizens in various purges and crackdowns, why are you so convinced they can be coerced into releasing Chen's wife and other relatives simply because of international condemnation? Last, for those who think a tough approach works best, consider the first foreign crisis of Dubya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident#Letter_of_the_two_sorries

Get used to it. Here's how it works: left-liberals are just "liberals." Right-liberals are "conservatives." But because anti-modernist conservatives have certain ideas in common with left-liberals (notably suspicion of globalism, consumerism and capitalism) these ideas are deemed "liberal," even when bona-fide conservatives hold them.

Nice Metaphor, how's that, again? What was the other set of categories besides "left liberals" and "right-liberals"? What distinguishes them?

Fact is, when you suggest having suspicion of capitalism is something that a bona-fide conservative would do, without adding any qualifiers like 'modern' or 'current' or even 'unrestrained', you tend to make me wonder just what it is that you think distinguishes that bona-fide conservative from the liberal? Cause in my book, the right of capital (or, one who invests his capital) to enjoy part of the profits produced with said capital (as specified by Leo XIII, Pius XI, and JP II) is pretty much one of the core stances of bona fide conservatives. Some people, admittedly, think that the term "capitalism" stands for more than that, a view of the rights of capital that permits no limits to its grasp, but the matter is debated and so just assuming that it does mean that more comprehensive idea is ... one of the things that is pretty common to liberals. Conservatives tend to insist on the distinction, and so speak with the qualifiers.

First, contra Alex, Hilary Clinton has been vocal in her support of Chen previously, which you would know if you read the news articles.

It may be that the administration is giving the ChiComs a way to safe face and still let Chen leave the country via a student visa. However, the inept nature of this administration's foreign policy leaves one with reasonable doubts about their ability to pull that off.

Second, the Chinese government in recent decades has not had a problem with imprisoning or killing tens of thousands of its own citizens in various purges and crackdowns, why are you so convinced they can be coerced into releasing Chen's wife and other relatives simply because of international condemnation?

Because, the ChiComs are sensitive to international press in situations like this. They want to be seen as a world leader. But, they also have a lot of the Japan in the early 1900's racial superiority complex. So, it is possible to make them give in but it has to been done carefully.

I'm not a fan of unenforceable situations where the refugees are under the physical control of another government while we claim a sort of legal control over them.

Step, that's why he came to the embassy! I'm not saying we had any way to "claim" him while he was several hundred miles away under house arrest! That's why he went to considerable trouble and risk (and so did other people) to transport him to our embassy.

I'm trying to imagine what you think we should do, send in Seal Team Six to extricate his whole family? That could literally be the start of WW3.

No, of course not. But foreign policy is an amazing thing. One of those complicated games of bluff. I don't claim that I would be very good at it. But you will have noticed (you can come up with examples yourself) that we have had ways in the past of getting countries to do things when we couldn't actually coerce them directly. We suggest that we could withhold this or that if they don't do x or y. We "call on them" to do x or y. We make it evident that they will lose face if they don't do x or y. Sure, to some extent it's a global game of chicken. The point is, however, that we didn't even try here. We didn't even keep him there for a week. It's quite obvious that he was made distinctly unwelcome. He was urged to leave the embassy. It was made clear to him that we weren't going to go to bat for him in this situation and that we thought him an embarrassment.

Under those circumstances, what do you think he thought he could ask for?

Without waxing eloquent on the oriental mind and oriental means of communication, it would seem to me that putting out a great big "No Welcome" mat might have osmething to do with his not immediately asking for asylum. Discussing with him exactly what he wanted and the ways in which we might try to help him obtain it would obviously have been a much differen thing and would doubtless have elicited a different response. It seems quite plausible that the only reason he at first indicated that he didn't want to leave the country was because he didn't want to leave his family behind. (In fact, IIRC, one of the stories reports this exact thing from one of his friends.) Had we shown some willingness to try to get the government to release his family, things might well have been different. As they are now, when he obviously would be _thrilled_ to come to the U.S. with his family.


Hilary Clinton has been vocal in her support of Chen previously, which you would know if you read the news articles.

Talk's cheap, isn't it? The rubber met the road here, and all that anyone was thinking about Hilary Clinton was, "Darn, she was just going over there to have a friendly visit with the Chinese, and this guy has to choose this embarrassing moment to make a dramatic nighttime escape, run to the embassy, and ask for our help!"


That's why he went to considerable trouble and risk (and so did other people) to transport him to our embassy.

Tony and I were talking about giving refugee status to his relatives, not Chen.

We didn't even keep him there for a week. It's quite obvious that he was made distinctly unwelcome.

Our embassies are supposed to house foreign citizens without a legal reason? Again, Chen only had to ask for asylum. I sort of agree with Alphonsus that too much of this story doesn't add up. Look at it from Chen's perspective: He is going to take all this trouble and risk, exposing everyone he cares about to possibly brutal punishment, but if the US doesn't use all their (supposedly) great influence to demand the release of his family he's going to walk back into Chinese custody.

Had we shown some willingness to try to get the government to release his family, things might well have been different.

Oh my gosh. For an authoritarian regime, this is an embarrassment of unparalleled dimensions. A blind man escaping house arrest, it could be the basis for a Hogan's Heroes episode. There is zero chance they would have negotiated a release of his family, do you understand the signal that would send to their own population? "Hey Chinese citizens, its okay for you and your family to escape our repressive regime, just show up at the embassy of some Western nation and we'll give your entire family a ticket out of here."

Talk's cheap, isn't it?

Not as cheap as slander, which is why I pointed out Alex's mistake.

I hate commenting on developing news stories. I get almost as much wrong as I do right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/04/us-expects-chen-guangcheng-travel-permission

Step2, I hope he *and his family* get out. It's not unknown (to put it mildly) for Communist regimes to insist that the family remain behind as a guarantee that the more well-known person (athlete, activist, chess player, etc.) will return.

If they do and come here, they'd darned well better formally apply for asylum.

It appears that the captive [Chen and his family] will be ransomed and that the sinner [China] has been admonished. This is the moral response I had hoped for from our government. And I don't care about the politics of who done it in this situation. I agree with St. Charles Borromeo, who said his politics are those of the Our Father: Thy Kingdom Come.

"Fact is, when you suggest having suspicion of capitalism is something that a bona-fide conservative would do, without adding any qualifiers like 'modern' or 'current' or even 'unrestrained', you tend to make me wonder just what it is that you think distinguishes that bona-fide conservative from the liberal?"

I mean capitalism as currently existing: industrial/corporate/finance capitalism, not the mere existence of markets.

The wording was "an extraordinary circumstance with very unusual parameters, and we don't expect it to be repeated". Which is factually true if somewhat weasel worded, how many people would expect a blind person to escape house arrest in Communist China? I would have to go with nobody would "expect" it.

Let's ask the question again: looking at the outcome, NOW how many people would expect a blind person to escape house arrest and come to the US embassy? Of course, the answer is zero.

Reminds me of a British sit-com scenario of 24 years ago, a British nurse was arrested in Kuwait on some Muslim charge (I think she had alcohol), was going to be whipped, and it was an international incident. British foreign office was busy telling everyone that they were "doing everything they can", but telling the prime minister that they "can't interfere with the internal affairs" and "can't offend Muslim sensibilities", so nothing really can be done, it's "impossible" to get the nurse released. In the meantime a private citizen goes over and successfully negotiates her release. When asked why it was supposedly "impossible" the foreign office replies "well, if it had been left to the foreign office (as we recommended) it WOULD have been impossible. It's not our fault it wasn't impossible."

It's a relief to see that we seem to be a full 24 years behind the British in degradation and fouled-up principles. I thought we were only 10 to 15 years behind.

I see no reason to interpret that "we don't expect it to be repeated" in some kind of hyper-literal way. One doesn't have to be a foreign policy expert or to speak Chinese in order to see that as signaling both to Chen and to the Chinese government that he would not be welcome at the embassy if he showed up again. It's frankly silly to try to read such a statement as having no meaning beyond the strictest, shallowest, literal meaning.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.