|
--Robret D. $utton I recently spoke with some students who were involved with the "Free Tibet" movement, which is promoting Tibetan independence from China. The Chinese government has recently kidnapped Tibetan monks and Lamas�the latest epic in a long line of oppressive measures. Make no mistake: the Tibetan people ARE the victims of tyranny. What puzzles me, however, is why the students and leaders of the "Free Tibet" movement choose to focus exclusively on Tibet�when the Chinese government is equally brutal with its own citizens. The limited reforms of the Chinese government notwithstanding, China is still a brutal dictatorship. One can look back to the massive slaughter at Tienanmen Square in 1989�when peaceful, pro-freedom demonstrators were mowed down by tanks�or one can check current day practices, of which the recent censorship of an internet site is only the "tip of the iceberg." The Chinese government currently maintains a number of concentration camps, where it employs the slave labor of "political prisoners" to manufacture certain goods. Countryside Chinese (who make an average of $187�a year) are mercilessly taxed, and brutally put down whenever they complain about it. Conditions are so bad in the countryside, that an average of 500 Chinese women commit suicide�A DAY. Five hundred suicides a day! Also, it is well known that women caught exceeding the "one child limit" are FORCED to have abortions. (Perhaps the most horrifying fact is that this is an IMPROVEMENT over past decades under Communist rule.) Anybody who truly gives a damn about "fundamental human rights" should be advocating the overthrow of China�s current regime, and the establishment of a system based on the recognition of individual rights (i.e., laissez-faire capitalism). Does the Chinese government have a "right to exist"? The only legitimate government is one that protects its citizens� individual rights. A regime that does not do this is not a government, but a gang. Gangs as such do not possess rights. Only individuals have rights; a group can have no rights beyond those of its individual members. No individual has the right to murder, enslave or rob others�nor has any government. This principle remains true even if a majority of a nation�s people consent to tyranny: numerical superiority may give one the ability to enslave, but it certainly does not give one the RIGHT to do so. A "social contract" signed with the blood of victims is a contradiction in terms. The Chinese government does not recognize individual rights�as such, it forfeits its own right to exist. A free (or relatively free) country has the right to topple a tyranny on behalf the oppressed (provided the free country�s military manpower and funds are voluntarily provided by its citizens). The US would be morally justified in overthrowing the Chinese government, provided a pro-individual rights government were established. It does not have the duty to do so�but it has the right. This last requires emphasis: a country�s ability to liberate people does not obligate it to become the "policeman of the world." A country�s foreign policy should be dictated by self-interest�it should not waste money and lives in a conflict from which its people have nothing to gain. Having said that, I submit that it would be in the (long-run) self-interest of every American to have a free China. Free countries are far more productive than dictatorships, and a productive country is ultimately a blessing for the entire world (the United States demonstrates both points). Moreover, think of all the untapped human potential! That�s billions of potential geniuses, employees, customers, etc. Finally, if nothing else, it goes without saying that a free China would be (at minimum) less of a threat than a statist one�not to mention a powerful ally in the cause for freedom. (Incidentally, a free government would have no need to oppress the Tibetan people�) At present, it may not be in America�s self-interest to start a direct war with the Chinese (although we could probably win). It IS in our self-interest, however, not to sanction a bloody dictatorship, as the Clinton administration has constantly done. Forget about "most favored nation status"�there is evidence to suggest the US government�s sale of missile technology to the Chinese government! If any of those campaign finance allegations against the president are true, then Mr. Clinton has been willfully supporting the oppression of over a billion people (is THAT an impeachable offense?). Aside from ending this disgusting spectacle, we could at least refuse to recognize the Chinese government�s sovereignty (at least until it cleans up its act). The time has come to tell the Chinese government that its oppression is not simply a "different way of doing things" (the relativist approach), but the WRONG way. The time has come to stop quibbling over (RELATIVELY) small violations of individual rights�and to start calling for an end to the last remnants of the Evil Empire that violates them. [Editor's note: As more incidents of Chinese oppression are revealed, the American government has been unable to sweep them under the rug. It is currently contemplating trade sanctions or some other minor action...] Notes Notes |
