Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThere was a time, not so long ago, when U.S. governmental hypocrisy on human rights and corporate interests was at least acknowledged.
But now it seems that the Bush administration has so degraded society's standards, and Big Business so routinely claims that it is bound by no ethical standard except to make money and follow the law -- even as it aims to define that very law, and then frequently flouts the remaining legal restraints -- that the hypocrisy is no longer even acknowledged.
At his news conference yesterday, George Bush angrily said they he could not and would not meet with the new President of Cuba, Raul Castro, because of Cuba's human rights record. Then, eight minutes later, he explained how excited he was to visit China for the Summer Olympics -- a visit during which he will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Just a month-and-a-half ago, the same George Bush visited with the Saudi King Abdullah, having a grand time with the King on his extravagant ranch.
Won't talk to Castro. Conferring with Hu. Relaxing with King Abdullah. Hmm.
Why not talk with adversaries in Cuba, Bush was asked.
His reply: "What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."
The questioner pressed: "No one is saying embrace him, they're just saying talk."
Bush responds: "Right, okay, good, thank you for reminding me to use a different word. Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States."
Then again using the term "embrace," he adds: "Now, somebody would say, well, I'm going to tell him to release the prisoners. Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace and these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them to respond."
Eight minutes later came the question about China and the Olympics.
What messages does it send when you go to China, where human rights are suppressed?
Bush said he was going primarily to enjoy a sporting event. However, Bush added, it was especially useful for him to go to China, because he could meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao! "And maybe I'm in a little different position. Others don't have a chance to visit with Hu Jintao, but I do." (Note how a meeting in Cuba is an "embrace," but a meeting in China is a "visit.") "And every time I meet with him I talk about religious freedom and the importance of China's society
recognizing that if you're allowed to worship freely, it will benefit the society as a whole; that the Chinese government should not fear the idea of people praying to a god as they see fit. A whole society, a healthy society, a confident society is one that recognizes the value of religious freedom. I talk about Darfur and Iran and Burma. And so I am not the least bit shy of bringing up" human rights concerns.
There certainly is a lot to discuss related to China's human rights conditions. The U.S. State Department's most recent human rights report notes: The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state. ... The government's human rights record remained poor, and in certain areas deteriorated. There were an increased number of high-profile cases
involving the monitoring, harassment, detention, arrest, and imprisonment of journalists, writers, activists, and defense lawyers, many of whom were seeking to exercise their rights under law. ... Other serious human rights abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings; torture and coerced confessions of prisoners; and the use of forced labor, including prison labor.
Then there's China's repression in Tibet, its support for the Sudanese government, and on and on.
Of course, it's not as if Hu Jintao won't have a shockingly long list of human rights complaints to raise as regards the United States, from authorized torture to the mass slaughter in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
China is not unique. President George Bush is quite happy to meet with leaders of countries characterized by pervasive human rights abuses. In January, Bush visited with his friend Saudi King Abdullah. He spent time with the King at his palace, and at his horse farm, which is reported to provide air-conditioned stables and aqua-therapy for the horses,
according to the BBC.
Bush and King Abdullah talked about the weather. They talked about Iran. They talked a lot about oil. There is no indication they talked about human rights in Saudi Arabia, though the Saudi King did actually raise a human rights issue -- Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
Just fyi, here's an excerpt from the State Department human rights report for Saudi Arabia:
"The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to peacefully change the government; infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments; beatings and other abuses; inadequate prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, sometimes incommunicado; denial of fair public trials; exemption from the rule of law for some individuals and lack of judicial independence; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; and significant restriction of civil liberties--freedoms of speech and press, including the Internet; assembly; association; and movement. The government committed severe violations of religious freedom. There was a widespread perception of serious corruption and a lack of government transparency, as well as legal and societal
discrimination and violence against women. Other religious, ethnic, and minority groups faced discrimination. There were strict limitations on worker rights, especially for foreign workers."
After the Tiananmen Square massacre, Big Business spent more than a decade trying to fully normalize U.S.-China relations. Corporations and their government allies offered their standard line about how commercial engagement would spur political freedom, but not many people took that seriously. It was widely understood that the government simply
subordinated whatever concern it had for advancing human rights to its aim of advancing corporate interests.
One has to be very cautious in making blanket statements in this area, but in general the idea of refusing to meet with national leaders is foolish. If there are legitimate objections over other countries' policies, top-level meetings can be helpful to voice those concerns and perhaps improve conditions. So, the objection to Bush's varying standards with regard to Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia is not that he chooses to meet with the Chinese and Saudi leaders.
But the differing treatment for the countries, so obviously correlated with U.S. economic and corporate interests, mocks whatever claim the United States still makes to advancing democracy and human rights. It is no small commentary on the state of affairs in the United States that this hypocrisy barely raises an eyebrow.
Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action. With Russell Mokhiber, he is editor of a weekly column, Focus on the Corporation, archived at http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus.
(c) Robert Weissman
30 Comments so far
Show Allworldwide, the leaders are all corrupt
I am interested in people talking about a grassroots internet-based revolution where the CIA doesn't have all the passwords to every computer program (as they do now).
This will never be possible if they take away net neutrality so fight for it...
The "hypocrisy" is certainly noticed in China.
Yes, very sad and unfortunate it doesn't seem to be noticed by everyone in the U.S., as it is so entirely obvious.
At this point (and increasingly in recent years), the attitude in China towards the U.S. government, and Bush in particular, reflects the observation that the activities of the U.S. government are increasingly hegemonic and hypocritical. Chinese people do not look to the U.S. for inspiration in areas of moral compass as much as they used to. And they did before - to a certain extent (quite noticeably, in fact).
With modern technology and the internet, the possibilities for change via information is unprecedented. It is ironic (or perhaps 'just') that the U.S. has lost its 'perceived image' as one of leader in human rights.
The Chinese people, fully online, read daily of the actions of the Bush administration and see right through his amoral and childish behavior, as well as through the astonishing 'enabling' that goes on to support him and his policies. Respect for the U.S. simply lessens. Very unfortunately, for some Chinese people, there is sadness and disillusionment associated with this.
For most people in China, however, life goes on and life is Chinese and most Chinese people don't particularly worry or care about the U.S. For most people here in China, the U.S. is of little concern and is certainly not a threat. No one here loses a wink of sleep over it, and I doubt anyone in Cuba does either.
Bush is worried about the human rights in Cuba? While he works so hard at banishing human right, and civil rights in this country?
He sits back and says nothing while the Palestinians in the "new Warsaw ghetto...has done nothing about the genocide in Darfur....etc.
Let us not forget the 600 detention camps he built...for those of us who disagree, dissent, protest against his wars and policies, question the 9/11 issues, catch the government in lies and demand truth about the gutting of the treasury.
The only ones who have real rights are the neocons and power greedy politicians and corporations.
He needs to look into the mirror. He is right up there with his own human rights violations. What a farse he is.
As soon as I heard this comment I thought of China, but then for a long time I have used China and Cuba together as an example of hypocrisy. I always ask people "What is the difference between China and Cuba?" and they look at me in a funny way and can't explain it. Both are communist, one party states so...what's the difference? We won't engage with Cuba but China we will and the very language used to describe our engagement with China doesn't work with Cuba only in an upside down universe.
Bush is the type who projects his own deranged reality out into the world. When he talks about 'embracing' the tyrant, he is the tyrant who is being 'embraced' by those whose bidding he then does.
(With a mother like his, how could it be otherwise ?)
It is important to listen to his choice of words (if you can stand it); in the queer lingo he sometimes subconsciously uses, 'visit' has overtly sexual connotations. 'Visiting' China is like a sexual exchange -- money for goods.
I can tolerate reading words he has said, but actually listening to him speak is pure torture.
We have a lot more common ground with China than Iran or Cuba. China is modernizing, westernizing, and actively moving forward. Iran and Cuba are solidly adversarial and a presidential visit would only strengthen their positions. A President visiting Cuba or Iran would be a waste of time. There are diplomatic talks with everyone, just not presidential ones.
Words are important: When they win, the candidates do promote change.
Nixon: Strengthened the power of the President and made the rule of law relative.
Carter: Allowed the peaceful transition of the panam canal and tried to tell the people about the malaise in the US.
Reagan: introduced the concept of trickle down and borrowing huge sums to make people happy. Attacked the unions.
Bush: not much
clinton: better finances, a surplus. Facilitated the monopoly of the media, and enhanced the imperial presidency.
BushII: The imperial presidency. Disregard for the law.
Things are much worse than ever. This has been accomplished by a gradual shifting of the status quo toward an absolute power for the president and destruction of the values of the constitution.
What has not changed, is the desire for empire.
It is completely illogical to try to make sense out of nonsense.
George Bush is a baffoon (a dangerous one at that), and if your belief is desiring a just society, it is counterproductive to show Bush for the baffoon that he is because it doesn't make a difference.
This site probably attracts the most progressive group of readers on the web on this large scale, and still we have bickering as to whether it should be Hillary or Obama when the reality is that neither will change the status quo.
Let me repeat, Obama, Hillary, or McCain will not do anything that changes the status quo. They will continue to support it.
The status quo is that coporate profits are more important than social justice. This is news that is only about 5,000 years old. Greed is the oldest profession.
And the fact that comments on this website still believe that Obama or Hillary will address the injustice is an indication of how much we are willing to deceive ourselves.
If the healthiest segment of society still falls victim to the lies put out by the status quo supporters, there is no chance of change for society, at least at this juncture.
And for those who say wait for the revolution, I have to say that if the peace and justice movement can't accomplish what it wants in peace, it won't be able to accomplish it when society is going down the tubes (is that redundant? Are we already down the tubes?).
peace, justice, human rights for all
Maybe the US should sign the UN treaty on the human rights of the child before playing this game.
Nahhh, that would be appeasing socialists.
"The greastest enemy of democracy is bald-faced hypocrisy"
"...a dictatorship is never called by its proper name until it has fallen and its statues and idols have been toppled and smashed in the streets."
-- Crazy Bird
Remember the Bushniks said they make their own reality? That explains how they can say anything they desire, and paint people and nations evil or good, depending on how it affects them and their cronies, whether it makes any sense or not.
Bush and his entire cadre of liars and criminals have gotten away with so much for so long, that truth or common sense mean nothing anymore to any of them. Notice how our new Attorney General is blocking getting truth out of Miers and Bolton and claiming that is as it should be. They are quite good at trying to get information our of hundreds of people they have grabbed and are holding with no legal rights.
Because Tiananmen Square in '89 was sooooo much better to be tolerant of than Castro's Cuba. Along with lead paint on kids toys, although I am sure I have eaten my share of lead paint chips, poisoning our pet food, every Human Rights Violation, I am sure we have surpassed their record in that arena, the Olympics and since they own us now, WTF bush has so many BFF's in the greater governments of our time, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and onward.
Man, when will this whole Cubans are Communists and WE must hate them, except if they are China, cease? Beautiful island, people are wonderful, fix a '56 Chevy like no other, it is to the point that it can only belong in the Theatre of the Absurd.
Speaking of embracing tyrants, did you see Bush kissing and dancing with Saudi King Abdullah during his recent visit, topped off with a promise of $20 billion in US-made high tech weapons? What of his repression of his own people and sponsorship of radical, terrorist-recruting mosques and madrasas worldwide? And Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, who uses our money and weapons to support fundamentalist terrorism in India? Castro sends well-trained Cuban doctors to many developing countries to improve healthcare, and his system is better and far more cost efficient than ours.
The reason real anarchists detest centralized government is corruption of power by politicians. When the average person finally realizes who controls most things in society, and for what purposes, they may decide to band together and implement a new agenda promoting an egalitarian system. Until that time, human rights violations will still be a problem.
Hypocrisy is rampant around the world, the United States included.
Weissman has taken pains to analyze the gwb positions with Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia and its good analysis too. But aren't we done with such analysis? The gwb position can be explained with one word, 'imperialism' or another word 'insanity'. For the 'imperialist' position it is sufficient that they do what makes sense to them. Is there more to say other than add this position to the long list of other illogical and insane positions and presidential directives and signing statements. Why are we so deeply analyzing Cuba? What about the law breaking in our own country? Heck forget about gwb; how about an insane position such as, 'impeachment is off the table' by pelosi.
Why are we even analyzing anything at all.
And yes as another comment pointed out, mccain, clinton or even obama is not going to change things. With mccain of course it will be the blatant insanity. With clinton and obama it will be smarter insanity and imperialism. One wonders which is worse; being an outright scoundrel or being a clever, smarter and covert scoundrel.
You can read about China in Naomi Klein's book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. Suffice it to say, democracy in China was actually suppressed to serve the interests of the trans-national, uber-national, flat-worlder corporatocracy. So China is OK with the plutocracy that rules the world.
The Saudis are not considered dictators but instead are considered 'owning classes' or owners of Saud's Arabia, who have the juice, or spice, that runs the trans-national hyper-economy. Thus, the Saudis are just exactly the same as the Bush and Cheney Families. They are part of the same ownership class, the in-crowd that rules the realpower world.
So of course Bush is okey-dokey with those dictatorships, much as he is with the corporatist CEO dictatorships here at home. But Cuba is not 'cooperating' with the corporatist/fascist flat-world program, so it has to have its kneecaps busted and its face kicked in. And the 'Capo' can't be making nice with the 'guy' he has ordered beaten up. Until that 'guy' cries uncle, kisses the Capo's ring, and gets with the program.
Hey, Frank, they're pretty startling figures, not at all in keeping with the image that America liked to project at one time.
Then I guess killin' and hangin' and jailin' has been part of your history since it began (Australia's record isn't too hot either).
It seems to me we are heading back to the Dark Ages again. It's in our nature I guess.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Screw Cuba and China and the rest - we got our own Human Rights problems to deal with:
"The United States now has the largest prison population in the world at more than 2.3 million. That number far exceeds some 1.8 million adult prisoners representing the total prison population of 36 European countries where the aggregate population is 2.7 times that of the US."
-One in every 100 US adults is currently in prison; a total of 7.2 million people behind bars, on probation or on parole.
-One in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars.
-One in 36 adult Hispanic men is behind bars
-One in 15 adult black men is incarcerated, as is one in nine black men ages 20 to 34.
-One in 355 white women ages 35 to 39 is in jail.
-One in 100 black women is in jail.
-One out of every 34 male Idahoans is incarcerated or on parole in Idaho.
-Georgia - 5.8 per 1,000 residents incarcerated.
-Texas - 7.1 per 1,000 residents incarcerated.
Wonder why our God blessed human rights holier-than-thou lectures are the laughing stock of global late nite tv...
This is just Bushspeak. I have unpluged my propaganda machine so this sort of viral infection will wear off. Meanwhile I wait for humanity to rise up and overthrow this failed nation-state controlled as it is by the Corporate Warring Class.
There is no oil in Cuba.
Given that the US has been holding hundreds of prisoners without charge or hope of a fair trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002, wouldn't it be awkward for Bush to raise the issue of political prisoners in the rest of Cuba with Raul Castro?
Many eyebrows ARE raised. They're on the faces of those of us who care about human rights here and abroad. Unfortunately, they're not on the faces of the Bush/Cheney war criminals or their Congressional and corporate media accomplices, and certainly not on the faces of the TV/Cable networks & print media set to make billions on telecasts of the Olympics.
Those poor Cubans. They are being forced to grow and eat their own organic food (without chemical fertilizers) instead of Mc Nuggets.
If they weren't hypocrites they wouldn't be politicians would they?
King Abdullah was eaten by a cave lizard on Star Trek Voyager.
Look it up if you dont believe it.
formernadervoter, do you honestly think Obama would call for removing travel restrictions to Cuba immediately, state intent to meet with Raul Castro--against and taking criticism from Clinton and McCain over these positions--and not go on to normalization? Is your comment arising from a doctrinaire ideological commitment to portraying an Obama presidency as the "same" prospects for the future as Bush, McCain, and Clinton on issues such as Cuba? Are you more interested in bringing down Obama than in seeing relations with Cuba normalized? Think about it. See:
"The Economic Sanctions Against Cuba" (article on ZNet):
"Democrat Barack Obama, 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, has already spoken out against the economic punishment exacted on Cuba."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14002
And,
"One Major Difference Between Clinton and Obama? Their Records On Cuba", John Nichols, The Nation.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/77345/
Bush won't talk to Raul Castro. What good would it be conversing with the imbecile George Bush? I don't even like to look at the guy much less talk to him. He doesn't have anything to say and I don't value his opinions. Bush and comapany just want to get their mafia back in control of Cuba so they can run their drugs and gambling and money laundering buisness's again.
illegal to do Cuban cigars
Our economy depends on Saudi oil and cheap (for a short time more) Chinese goods.
Doesn't this capitalist oligarchy warm your heart.
one of the greater ironies is that while it is illegal for an American to even smoke a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world, bush's murdering blackwater thugs are subject to no law.
As Obama told the NAACP, he is for keeping the illegal economic blockade on Cuba. This is a massive violation of international law and the human rights of Americans and, most especially, the Cuban people.
Different quarterback, same illegal play.