It is comforting to know that we are all the same whence denuded. It is foolish to think that disingenuous facades can be maintained indefinitely, be they Chinese "democracy" or American "prosperity" built upon debt.

It is a universal truth that until we stop lying to ourselves, little shall improve. I shan't hold my breath on either account.

Since I'm American, I'll pick only on the Chinese for now - but am not detracting from BRAD...'s input.

This well-written article only bolsters the argument of those (like me) that find it hard to unequivocally respect the rise of China when they can't respect their own constituents (much less their neighbors and global peers), can't float their currency, or compete economically on level ground (i.e. without subsidies).

Been there, seen that. China is not the only country targeting lawyers, not that it makes a wrong right. In Malaysia, a lawyer, Ambiga Sreenevasan was publicly castigated by the Prime Minister as being "anti-Islam" just because she had taken up a case to defend someone on a religious issue. That's a very serious allegation especially in a Muslim country. Not only lawyers but journalist are also fair game in many other countries. So are the ways of the world. To resist seems futile but not to resist .... will open the tidal gates to oppression and insufferable indignities.

What surprises outside observers of China about the recent crackdown on lawyers is that the government could believe lawyers, particularly those working in human rights, are sufficiently efficacious to merit silencing. The assumption is that the outcome of high profile cases, many of which have political implications, are determined by extra-legal actors. An advocate only makes a difference in the lower profile cases that the state can afford to have decided based on the persuasiveness of arguments from both sides. If this is true, and the article suggests that it is, then the objective of the crackdown is not really to undermine the clout of individual lawyers. Rather, the government is probably looking for a scapegoat for its frustrations with recent legal reforms, particularly in the area of criminal procedure. As the legal system becomes more robust, so does the lawyer's profession. Whereas the state could easily direct the outcome of a case under the old regime, it must now deal with inconvenient resistance from skilled and passionate advocates and the new laws they are armed with. The logic is that if the lawyers are silenced, the legal system will revert to what it once was; repealing the laws themselves would be considered an even worse PR move. The strategy is not fooling the international community. As hated as they are in parts of the world where there are too many of them, lawyers are an essential part of an advanced legal infrastructure. Until China respects their role in the modern legal system, a body of law that matches the impressiveness of its economic prowess is a delusion.

http://thealephmag.com/2011/05/02/those-wise-restraints-that-make-men-free/

Well put Rliao, dui

"This well-written article only bolsters the argument of those (like me) that find it hard to unequivocally respect the rise of China when they can't respect their own constituents (much less their neighbors and global peers), can't float their currency, or compete economically on level ground (i.e. without subsidies)."

How does one respect or not respect the rise of China? The fact is that China is resurging from what it once was in terms of total global GNP.
Do you respect or not respect rain after drought? Respect for the Chinese government is not relevant and specifically is not an ingredient for US policy on China.

First, there is such a thing as sovereignty and nationhood. How a government treats its citizenships seldom predicts how a nation treats other nations. It is a folly, or is just rhetorical, to assume that if a country A does not value freedom as much as country B, then country A will not honor obligations made to country B. Such obligations are made among nations, not based on how a nation treats its citizens. During colonial times, most Western countries had treated their citizens domestically well democratically, yet they brutalized other countries.

(Businesswomen from Western countries are treated differently in the ME than native Middle Eastern women. This was what my professor in B-school told me, believe it or not.)

Second, I have not seen democracy develop without either first economic development (South Korea) or administration by an advanced democracy due precisely to injustice made by one nation to another (stemming from virulent racism of the West such as in the case of India; Hong Kong had been a peculiar mix.) China is still a poor country so one cannot expect miracle in seeing human rights protected to the same extent as in the West.
China is ordinary developing country except for its enormous size, a fact to which many in the West are oblivious.

In fact, I see the Chinese government as competent in advancing the most important interests of the vast majority of its citizens.

Third, China is resurging at least partly because there is now no Britain to force opium into it and no Japanese troops waging war of conquest in it. In short, China is resurging because the West has become more decent. Should the West want to regress back to the indecency of virulent racism? I don’t think so. Don’t lament the resurgence of China, unless one regrets Western social progress. Respect? Not relevant except that the Chinese want “respect”, whatever it means. They already have it, whatever it means, but many Chinese don’t realize or don’t want to realize.

If the US wants China to be more cooperative on economic issues, it should stop hounding China on issues that are not relevant to American interests. I mean specifically in reference to issues involving ethnic minorities and Taiwan.

The American social progress is in the amelioration of racism; it is also, and consequently, in promoting assimilation, in the making of Americans of Obama’s racial mix. The Tibetan cultural identity in China, for example, will likely come to an end; such is assimilation. I for one want to see the Native and Hawaiian cultural identities come to an end in a few generations, such reflect social progress. Same for any black and Hispanic cultural identities. Ethnic parents seldom agree, but minority identity is perpetuated by discrimination. Ask the players in the Dallas Cowboys, black and brown, if they want cultural identity or the same chance with Jessica Simpson as Tony Romo. The continual social progress in China is also, as in the USA of late post-Civil Rights, assimilation.

Taiwan is a part of China, as articulated by the head of the UN.

The US is not spending its international political capital wisely re China. Economic issues should be paramount without worthless and inappropriate digressions. Human right advocacy can be adjunct but cannot be central to US-China relations. Human right in China is not relevant to American core interest; and it cannot be rushed without much greater economic progress in China or anywhere in the world.

I sometimes think that FP can be too soft on China if not the West generally. The truth is that the current economic situation makes the West too weak to force the Chinese government to face the music over Tibet, Tiananmen Square and all their other human rights atrocities. The Chinese authorities always trot out the same song and dance routine about the West interfering in their domestic affairs.... and there is very little we can do about it. However at the same time they loathe bad publicity like this FP article. And fear of bad press acts as a brake at least in part on their actions. So keep it up FP

In one of the most severe blows the Bush administration has dealt to our constitutional democracy, the Pentagon attacked the lawyers who have volunteered to represent the Guantánamo detainees. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Stimson threatened corporate lawyers who agree to defend the men and boys imprisoned there. Flashing a list of corporations that use law firms doing this pro bono work, Stimson declared, "Corporate C.E.O.'s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists."

According to kayden kross, in 1770, John Adams defended nine British soldiers including a captain who stood accused of killing five Americans. No other lawyer would defend them. Adams thought no one in a free country should be denied the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel. He was subjected to scorn and ridicule and claimed to have lost half his law practice as a result of his efforts. Adams later said his representation of those British soldiers was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."