It is hard for this writer to laud President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but in this case, even the socialist Roosevelt showed more integrity than our so-called "conservative" President, George W. Bush. When the 1936 Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany, President Roosevelt refused to attend those ceremonies for fear that his presence would give honor and prestige to the notorious Adolf Hitler. And so it would have. And, by the same token, when President Bush attends the opening ceremonies in China, he is giving honor and prestige to the bloody butchers of Beijing who have persecuted,tortured, and murdered multiplied thousands of the Chinese people since the communist regime took power in 1949.Bush said that it "would be an affront to the Chinese people" if he stayed away. Wrong. It would be an affront to the Red Chinese tyrants. And they deserve to be affronted! Instead, by attending the Olympic ceremonies, Bush is choosing to affront the hundreds of thousands of Chinese victims who have suffered brutality and barbarism at the hands of the very people Bush will be wining and dining with.
Other world leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, are choosing to not attend the opening ceremonies in the communist country.
Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute writes:
John McCain harbors a barely disguised hostility toward China, arguing that her growing economy and military modernization pose a great threat to the United States. On several occasions, he has cited China's rise as a justification for even greater U.S. military spending. Most independent experts estimate Beijing's military budget to be between $50 and $75 billion, and the Pentagon contends it is between $84 and $125 billion. At any rate, McCain considers the amount excessive for China's legitimate defense needs. Yet he does not view the U.S. military budget (including supplementals for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) of nearly $800 billion to be excessive.
He also advocates provocative symbolic snubs of the Chinese government. For example, he criticized President Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, because of human-rights abuses.
Cato Institute foreign-policy analyst Malou Innocent concedes that Beijing's authoritarianism is troubling, but she notes that "Senator McCain appears to preclude the possibility of building a constructive relationship with China unless it becomes fully democratic." That attitude puts at risk America's extensive economic relationship with China as well as ignores the numerous issues on which we need China's help — most notably in trying to defuse the North Korean and Iranian crises. This is yet another area in which a McCain presidency would likely be more confrontational and destabilizing than the Bush presidency.
Does the refusal of Merkel and Brown to honor the Chinese Communists put their countries' economic relationships with China at risk? How many weapons has the Chinese government sold to Iran?
When Americans cooperate with Chinese entrepreneurs to build a McDonald's in China, liberty is arguably enhanced. When Washington D.C. cooperates with the Chinese Communist government, liberty is arguably at risk.
When Americans compete against citizens of a dictatorship in the Olympics, liberty is arguably enhanced. When Washington D.C. cooperates with the Chinese Communist government, liberty is arguably at risk.
Are the Chinese Communists really going to prevent American entrepreneurs from building any more McDonald's in China if Bush doesn't honor the Chinese government at the Olympics? Would cutting the Chinese people off from American productivity make revolution in China more likely?
The original American view is for Americans to have liberty -- as individuals or as corporations and voluntary associations -- and for the federal government to have no entangling alliances with other regimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment