Yang Jianli spent five years in a Chinese prison on political charges. He tells FP why he believes some American policymakers are hypocrites when it comes to China and what he hopes President Bush will say at the Beijing Games.
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Related to this article:
For additional Web extras from the January/February 2008 issue of FP, click here. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Foreign Policy: How has U.S. policy toward China over the past decade been inconsistent, as you argue in your article?
Yang Jianli: I’ll give you two examples: Bill Clinton, in his 1992 campaign, criticized the [George H.W.] Bush administration for its soft stance against the Chinese communist regime right after the [Tiananmen] massacre. [Clinton] vowed to stand firmly on human rights issues when dealing with China. But he didn’t stick to what he promised, which was a surprise and dismay to my colleagues in the dissident community. In 1994, he suddenly delinked human rights issues from trade, a stand that turned out to be even softer than the Bush administration’s. And in 2001, again, the United States allowed China’s accession to the WTO [World Trade Organization] without almost any human rights conditions. That’s what I mean by inconsistent. It’s about credibility. If you always change whatever position you take, whether wrong to right or right to wrong, then the other party knows that you are changeable. Whenever it comes to a serious issue, they will press you to change, not themselves.
FP: You also argue that some academics are hypocrites in their stance toward China. In what sense?
YJ: They have a self-imposed censorship and fear because they try very hard to compete with one another for access to the top Chinese leaders. They are afraid that if they are outspoken and criticize the regime, opportunities to go to China will disappear. But there are very clear scholarly principles and standards: to be impartial, to be objective. And they have given them up for these opportunities.
China cannot go backward to the old days, the dark days with the door closed to the outside world. They cannot do it. The Chinese regime, like its predecessors, is increasingly worried about its international image. They will still allow [these academics] to enter China to do their studies because they need them for their image. So, why the self-censorship?
FP: Given the fact that China holds so much U.S. debt, do you believe the United States still has the kind of leverage it used to with China?
YJ: I think so. Who has leverage: the lender, or the borrower? If you have $100 million dollars, everybody will beg you to do something. The creditors won’t want to ruin the relationship with you. I think that over the years the United States has lost some leverage, but there’s new leverage that appears. For example, the democratic forces within China have been growing rapidly in the past few years. They will exert tremendous pressure on the Chinese regime from the inside. That’s the leverage. China’s people are leverage.
China needs the United States in many ways. They’ve lent so much money to the United States that they don’t want to see the U.S. economy collapse. If they want economic development in China, they cannot cut off all communication, all the flows of capital to China. They just can’t close the door. Whatever happens, they have to listen, to a certain degree, to the voice of the international community, and the United States in particular.
FP: You recommend that the next U.S. president press China to hold local elections. How realistic is that possibility? What are the obstacles?
YJ: It is realistic because the central government may not be against it. The central government has taken pains to control governmental corruption, and it has already shown that it has no ability to do that. They need other forces to control the corruption. If the central government staged a serious campaign against corruption, so many officials—maybe 90 percent of party officials—[would be implicated] that the central government would collapse. They need some forces outside of the party system to help them deal with rampant local corruption. Local elections would help them in this endeavor.
FP: Do you think the world is giving China a free pass for the 2008 Beijing Games?
YJ: I think the international community has some regret in granting the opportunity to Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. In 2001, when China wanted the opportunity, it promised to improve the human rights situation in China, and many people believed them. Now, they’ve learned the lesson. I see the regret. But I still see the Olympics as an opportunity for us to do something, though it is difficult. I still want to urge people to take this opportunity to do something.
