U.S. Silence on Chinese Protests

For over two years the United States Congress, the President, and the State Department have strongly criticized the Chinese government for its failure to take the issue of human rights seriously in Tibet. Recently Chinese students and workers have taken to the streets of Beijing and other major cities to protest against party corruption and the absence of basic democratic freedoms in China. Given the U.S. government’s consistent defense of human rights in Tibet we might have expected to see at least some sign of support for the current protests. Despite these expectations, the U.S. government remains conspicuously silent on the matter of democratic reform in the People’s Republic of China.

It is easy to understand why the U.S. government would choose not to come out in direct support of the students--doing so might further endanger them and their goals. Prudence dictates a more indirect course if we are to offer at least moral support for the cause of democratization in this nation of 1.2 billion people. Our government could have released a statement praising the Chinese government’s restraint and responsiveness vis-a-vis the protesters as a way of indirectly supporting the movement without unnecessarily offending the Chinese leadership. Our failure to champion the call for democracy in China is a source of confusion to the Chinese protesters and should be a source of shame to the American people.

Unfortunately, the lessons of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 have apparently been lost on contemporary American political leaders and have withered from the hearts of the American public.

During the past three presidential elections the American public and the world have been treated to a great many speeches on the historical destiny of America as a beacon to the world, Winthrop’s proverbial “city upon a hill.” We were told by President Reagan and now President Bush that the friends of democracy throughout the world could depend on us. Where is that beacon today? The protesters in China, who have once again decided to take history into their own hands, deserve a prompt response. John Winthrop’s original promissory demands it.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine

Petracca is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and Society at UC Irvine. During the fall of 1987 he was a visiting professor in the Department of International Politics at Peking University.