Feingold Condemns China -- and the U.S. -- on Tibet

"With its suppression of the Tibetan protests, China continues to compound its abysmal record on human rights."

So says Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, speaking with a firmness that has been missing from most official U.S. pronouncements regarding the Chinese government's brutal pre-Olympics crackdown on Tibet.

Feingold pulls no punches when it comes to questions about China's ill-treatment of Tibet, the nation it occupied in the 1950s and has held captive ever since.

Perhaps this is because Feingold is no newcomer to this issue.

A decade ago, speaking to a crowd of pro-Tibet activists gathered outside the White House, the Democrat declared, "It's just really frightful- this persecution being perpetrated on the people of Tibet. It's an attempt to destroy their religion and culture."

Feingold, then as now a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, used that fall 1997 speech to specifically criticize the administration of President Bill Clinton for failing to press China to end the repression of occupied Tibet.

Clinton, Feingold worried, was more concerned about promoting free trade pacts favored by the Beijing and its corporate allies on Wall Street, than about human rights.

As Feingold said at the time, "The larger issue is just my interest in human rights. I'm trying to keep human rights alive in foreign policy at a time when it seems like everyone just wants to talk about trade."

The senator was right to be concerned.

In short order, Bill and Hillary Clinton would – with support from Republican leaders in the House and Senate – end the policy of reviewing Beijing's human rights abuses when making decisions regarding trade relations between the U.S. and China.

By extending permanent most-favored-nation trading privileges to China, the Clinton administration and its Republican allies dramatically reduced the ability of the United States and other countries to pressure Beijing ease the abuse of the people of Tibet.

This summer's Olympic games in Beijing – which the Chinese are using as a tool to present their country as a responsible political, economic and social player – offer a rare opportunity to put the status of Tibet back on the table. That's why these issues have arisen this year, and that's why the Chinese government is doing everything in its power to clampdown on the Tibetans.

And that's why Feingold continues to argue that the White House – be it in Democratic or Republican hands -- and the Congress must do more to defend human rights in Tibet, in China and around the world.

Feingold is not playing partisan politics. He is more than happy to welcome Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's call for China to consider a new policy towards Tibet. But he refuses to accept that Rice's good words are a sufficient response to China's bad deeds.

"(The) administration has been slow to react to the crisis," says Feingold. "The president should clearly condemn the harsh, repressive tactics of the Chinese government in Tibet."

As has been the case for more than a decade: When it comes to Tibet, Russ Feingold is not just right -- his is the voice of conscience that should be echoed by all American leaders.

Comments (28)

1. Nichols is right. The U.S. should condemn the harsh, repressive tactics of the Chinese government in Tibet...

   Immediately after we have ended our war of adventure in Iraq and have earnestly sought the world's forgiveness for our own unconsciencionable breach of Iraqi human rights.

   ...Oh yeah, closing down Gitmo would need to be a prerequisite as well.

   Posted by canaar at 04/06/2008 @ 5:46pm

2. Happy, you think there might have been some alternative to war with regards to the human rights situation in Iraq? Just maybe? Like how we handle such things everywhere there isn't oil?

   As for the focus on Tibet it makes some sense to talk about it now because of the Olympics, but I have never understood the focus on Tibet. It seems to me there are, and have been since before this became a popular issue for 19 year olds in the 1990s, many more pressing humanitarian problems to be addressed (Darfur is the obvious one, but also the plight of native Americans throughout the Americas). Unless there are facts about the Tibet situation I have never seen I can't see how this is anything more than the issue of choice for limo liberals.

   DP

   Posted by Poppolphil at 04/06/2008 @ 6:04pm

3. Gotta love those timewarps.

   What happens in Tibet shouldn't be ignored simply because the catastrophe (which is also partially the fault of the Chinese)in Darfur is so acute and deteriorating by the moment. I'm certain that Feingold has chastised the administration for its tepid reaction in Darfur as well.

   Posted by yutsano at 04/06/2008 @ 6:39pm

4. So, why isn't bleeding heart Feingold supportive of our fight in Iraq?

   gee, i have no idea. why wouldn't senator feingold be supportive of our brilliantly conceived and perfectly executed takeover of iraq?

   it's beyond me.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2008 @ 6:43pm

5. Posted by HAPPY2 04/06/2008 @ 5:43pm

   ...millions died due to Saddam...

   You mean the guy leading the country that Ronald Reagan took off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism when he was gasing people and sent Donald Rumsfeld to figure out how the U.S. could help Iraq militarily?

   What is happening in Tibet is a systematic destruction of a culture. The closest Middle East parallel would be the Kurds, and if Saddam systematically relocated Arabic people to the region, imposed the Arabic language on the Kurds, eliminated tribal leaders and replaced them of people of their own choosing and so forth.

   It's ultimately a question of self-determination and liberty, something one would think you could understand in the face of a socialist state telling you what to do. You also would do well to look at the history of internments in Tibet. While there aren't good figures, a couple of hundred thousand deaths is very likely.

   Posted by srjenkins at 04/06/2008 @ 6:56pm

6. god loves you, russ.

   but after our embracing of the dark side under the neocon crypto-fascists...how much moral force do we have in this regard?

   neocons - treasonous, criminal, shame on our nation...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/06/2008 @ 8:51pm

7. Posted by FDR42 04/06/2008 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person

   bully hypocrites fear the commie/fascist behemoth, china, they have helped create by exporting our manufacturing base there...

   shape of things to come [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/06/2008 @ 8:56pm

8. It isn't that Feingold focuses on one rather than another. I like Feingold alot, to the point where I trust that his priorities are in the right place even though I don't know them to be. It is all the rich kids whose claim to fighting the man is the 'Free Tibet' sticker on their BMW.

   Posted by Poppolphil at 04/07/2008 @ 03:04am

9. Happy-I did not know that you supported Iran and believe that we should protect them.Obviously,you won't be voting for McCain considering his views on Iran.If you are concerned about Iraqis then why aren't you upset that Bush invited jihadists to come into their country to blow them up so we can fight them there instead of here?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/07/2008 @ 10:16am

10. Unless there are facts about the Tibet situation I have never seen I can't see how this is anything more than the issue of choice for limo liberals.

    DP

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 04/06/2008 @ 6:04pm

    there is also the abysmal human rights record in China itself, the horrible environmental devastation taking place there and the lack of basic worker rights. China killed almost 2 million Tibetans, continues to occupy Tibet, wants to occupy Taiwan, yet they remain an MFN trading partner.

    good for Russ!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2008 @ 2:17pm

11. Sure Beijing remains a vicious and tyrannical regime. But now at least they have an incentive to play ball, now they have something to lose, now it is a question of how well they play by ourrules. Before they disowned our rules and showed open contempt for them. Now they have taken the first important step to decency. They have become hypocrites.

    Posted by MARKCANYON 04/06/2008 @ 7:04pm

    what incentive? they continue to be a very bad communist regime. They got the Olympics, they get free trade, they get to loan us money for war at interest, they get to threaten Taiwan, they keep their "one child" policy, they jail/torture/murder tens of thousands of democracy advocates, thousands of freedom of religion advocates, they have almost zero environmental laws.

    In short, what has almost a decade of MFN status brought, other than an increase in production?

    China is a socialist country, it is written into their constitution, neo-cons. Even with updates in 2004.

    The Constitution was amended on March 14, 2004 to include guarantees regarding private property ("legally obtained private property of the citizens shall not be violated,") and human rights ("the State respects and protects human rights.") This was argued by the government to be progress for Chinese democracy and a sign from CCP that they recognised the need for change, because the booming Chinese economy had created a new class of rich and middle class, who wanted protection of their own property.

    Wen Jiabao was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "These amendments of the Chinese constitution are of great importance to the development of China." "We will make serious efforts to carry them out in practice." [1] But subsequently there was no clear indication that the changes were leading to increased protection for Chinese citizens in terms of human rights or property rights. Chinese people continue to be arrested for trying to challenge government decisions (whether they are legal or not), even when using the law itself. The censure of the media is still in place, as can be seen by the closure of out-spoken publications, or re-staffing to remove editors and journalists who have annoyed officials, such as was the case with the Freezing Point magazine. -- WIKI

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2008 @ 2:25pm

12. wants to occupy Taiwan,

    Imagine, they want to occupy Taiwan, a part of China. a part of their own country. imagine.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 4:28pm

13. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 5:50pm

    Massive agreement with you on this one Rev.

    RIO, nothing to see here? Genocide, slavery, torture, bondage, socialism, communism, environmental disaster, eminent domain throwing people off their land? nothing in there for you? Nada?

    China wanted the Olympics in part to showcase their newfound human rights and economic powerhouse. They got the second half, and can only get the first if we ignore the reality and hope they will just continue to be a source of cheap labor.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2008 @ 9:03pm

14. Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 10:10pm

    happy,

    keep spinning like that and you're gonna need a barf bag.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:33am

15. That was the work of the liberal members of the SCOTUSA! See, no reason leftwingnuts would object to that since that is the kind of court they desire1

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/07/2008 @ 10:19pm

    where do you get that idea?

    I guess you know nothing about Chinas dam projects? Not surprising.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 07:15am

16. .at the time, gassing of Kurds was probably unconfirmed or hasn't even taken place....and Saddam's genocide of the Marsh Arabs has definitely NOT taken place!

    Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 10:10pm

    Wow you guys are special!

    Raygun blamed the gassing of the Kurds on Iran, not his proxy, until it became public knowledge and he could no longer blame Iran. Then he issued this famous statement:

    "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

    This is after:

    Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting

    someone clue in HAPPY2BEACOWARD

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 07:22am

17. Action alert!!

    Find out who is advertising with NBC (that damn liberal media outlet owned by GE!), write to the advertisers and tell them you will not be buying their products if they advertise during the Genocide Olympics.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 07:24am

18. A little more history for the revisionists:

    Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain.

    A senior U.N. official who had participated in a fact-finding mission to investigate Iran's complaint commented "Iranians may well decide to manufacture and use chemical weapons themselves if [the] international community does not condemn Iraq. He said Iranian assembly speaker Rafsanjani [had] made public statements to this effect" [Document 50].

    Iraqi interests section head Nizar Hamdoon met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke on March 29. Hamdoon said that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution, and wanted the response to refer to former resolutions on the war, progress toward ending the conflict, but to not identify any specific country as responsible for chemical weapons use. Placke said the U.S. could accept Iraqi proposals if the Security Council went along. He asked for the Iraqi government's help "in avoiding . . . embarrassing situation[s]" but also noted that the U.S. did "not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship" [Document 54].

    On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. A State Department memo circulating the draft text observed that, "The statement, by the way contains all three elements Hamdoon wanted" [Document 51].

    On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." The directive does not suggest that "condemning" chemical warfare required any hesitation about or modification of U.S. support for Iraq He said that "Iraq's superiority in weaponry" assured Iraq's defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, "remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq's defense;" Tariq Aziz had to agree

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 07:29am

19. keep spinning like that and you're gonna need a barf bag.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/08/2008 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

    keep reading that fool and YOU will need a barf bag.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 09:49am

20. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

    consistently fine posting.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 09:50am

21. Here is some info RIO may not be aware of. It turns out that the SCOTUS had nothing to do with it!

    A recent article distributed by the Associated Press on October 12, 2007, states many more individuals will have to move from the region by the year 2020:

    The reservoir already has forced 1.4 million people out of their homes amid criticism the project has wreaked ecological havoc and forced people to move to places where they cannot make a living.

    On Friday, state media and the region's local government signaled rising concern over the dam's impact, saying as many as several million more people would have to be moved from areas adjacent to the reservoir in a form of "environmental migration."

    ...This recent announcement of an increase in displacement of citizens from the Yangtze region comes too soon after a report was issued in September of 2007, highlighting major environmental problems caused by the dam including erosion, sedimentation, and possible water quality problems.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 2:22pm

22. As far as concentrating on other hot spots around the world, China is the main supporter of the governments of Sudan, Burma and other nefarious regimes around the world. By applying pressure on China, it may be possible to slow down those dictators.

    Think about it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 2:24pm

23. Perhaps the neo-cons could explain to us lefty morons why they rant and rave against European and American socialism, but defend Chinese socialism? I am sure there is more reason than the cheap labor force and lack of regulation on industry, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/08/2008 @ 2:28pm

24. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

    they just LOVE the authoritarian part.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 2:51pm

25. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=FDR42

    there's democracy and there's democracy. in England for instance the people had no problem getting rid of Blair, when he had outlived his usefulness to his party, while here in the US we have to wait until Bush's term is up. who's more democratic?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 5:41pm

26. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2008 @ 3:02pm

    A post filled with false assumptions. Where have you ever seen me desire censorship? State sponsored abortion? State power over property? Have you ever seen me advocate war with China? Have I ever said we need to stop trading completely with China?

    I do expect more from you FREI.

    This is better-Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2008 @ 5:51pm

    As far as Feingold, it is his JOB to protect his constituents. He, like many of us, has watched as income in his state has dropped. As jobs have fled to countries with zero labor/enviromental laws and rock bottom wages. You argue that we have too many regs, but those regs have come at a hard price, and most people like knowing that their air and water are relatively clean, that when their kids go to work it will be in a safe environment.

    For someone that advocates war in Iraq to "free" it's people, how can you possibly condemn those of us that want non-violent progress in China and an end to their occupation of Mongolia and Tibet and an end to their dictatorship, including prison for democracy advocates, torture of religious prisoners and those that stick out from society?

    Seriously, what is it about China, other than a source for cheap stuff, that makes you guys put the blinders on full?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 07:32am

27. he left-wingers [and we all know the 'protesters' are almost exclusively leftist] with their panties in a twist over Tibet are textbook useful idiots.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2008 @ 3:02pm

    so where are the finger fighters for freedom? The socialist haters? The communist hunters? Our very own democracy advocates that are so hell bent on spreading freedom around the world at gunpoint?

    shopping at MALWART for communist goods.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 07:36am

28. FREI, if you think the commies are going to roll over and not send the People Army out to hunt down opponents of their power structure, well, I just don't know where you have been the last 50 years.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 07:39am