A Possible Compromise?

In 1991, merely 2 years after the Tienanmen Massacre, Nancy Pelosi went to Tienanmen square and carried a banner paying tribute to those who lost their lives. Now, she is about to visit Beijing again as the speaker of the House.

At the press conference, she did not hint whether she would mention human rights during her visit. If she had the courage of flying a banner on that square when the blood was fresh, she should have the courage to carry on the fight 20 years later. Of course, to her, the fight today might be more difficult since most of the Americans care nothing more than economy, within which China is an indispensable part. Human rights is always lighter on the scale when money is on the other end. Circumventing the question about whether she will talk about human rights or not is consistent with the trend of this and the preceding administrations: the main business of America is business; human rights has become a shady business as if mentioning it would cause endless pains and sufferings.

Compromise. Or should I say appeasement? To draw a portrait called “monster,” one should not only put that monster in the frame. Those who are patting it should never be left out.


2 Responses to A Possible Compromise?

  1. Dustin says:

    The US also needs China’s cooperation with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, another reason why I think Nancy Pelosi would probably not raise the issue of human rights…

    • resipsal says:

      Yet, shortly after she came back to DC, she stated that China failed to improve its human rights record, a statement that most of the Chinese would have no access to.
      She just can’t bring that up when she’s in China, can she?
      The explanation might be that 20 years ago, bashing China openly on its human rights violation is beneficial to her political career; now it’s not.
      Funny thing is that these politicians are all near sighted about their “mission to China.” They look for excuses to not mention human rights, such as their sole topic is about environment or economy, not human rights. However, to deal with environmental or economic issue, human rights is necessary. China has jailed several whistle-blowers just because they openly pointed out environmental violations or reported corrupted officials. This is a direct violation of human rights, which also indirectly harms the health of the economic system and environmental protection.
      To say that her mission is about environment and environment only is like walking into a restaurant with absolutely nothing but a digestive system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: