Permanent Normal 'Ethical' Foreign Follies

Wednesday, April 19, 2000 -- HONG KONG (AmpolNS) -- I'm back.

When I emailed my co-editors at Ampol and indicated I was once again in a position to contribute articles, they asked me to provide something with an 'Asian' flavour.

So I began a piece about the mass arrest of peaceful protesters, tear gas attacks by baton wielding armed police in riot gear backed up by armoured vehicles -- but then I thought, no, stick to the brief, try to write something about Asia and not Washington.

I tried substituting 'Washington' with 'Kuala Lumpur' -- and oddly enough the piece pretty much worked without too much rewriting. But as I was changing 'anti-IMF/WB' to 'anti-Mahathir', some other interesting things happened so I decided to spike the piece and use it later.

Just what is the deal between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Russia's Vladimir Putin? I really want to know. I am not kidding, there is cause for serious concern here. Blair caused not a little outrage by his visit to the St. Petersburg Opera and cozy tête-à-tête with the former KGB spy - an obvious and totally unacceptable endorsement of a presidential candidate. And where does Putin go on his first visit since winning the election? Tea and cucumber sandwiches with the British Queen. 

I wonder what they talked about? Swapped stories about getting rid of troublesome Moslems, no doubt. The merits of a MiG 29 and the freedom of Chechnya's skies over a Mercedes 'S' Class and the confines of a Paris underpass.

I am not really surprised by Britain's foreign policy -- or rather, the lack of. Especially after Margaret Thatcher's nauseating defense of Augusto Pinochet. Putin is ultimately responsible for gross human rights abuse in Chechnya, the total destruction of Grozny, and a refugee problem that goes beyond the pale. But he gets a red-carpet welcome. Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic is ultimately responsible for gross human rights abuse in Bosnia and Kosovo, okay -- he didn't flatten any metropolitan areas (NATO did that), but he did oversee the trashing of several villages, and a refugee problem that goes beyond the pale. Milosevic gets an indictment. Go figure.

Well, having said that, save yourself a headache. Don't even try. British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, architect of London's 'ethical foreign policy', this week rejected any suggestion of sanctions against Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe. He wouldn't even consider freezing Mugabe's personal assets. Cook says sanctions only hurt the poor people -- and since Mugabe has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the hardships of the poor people, sanctions would not be appropriate.

As opposed to who, for example? Saddam Hussein? That most generous, caring, loving, fatherly man who shares intimately the pain and suffering of his people under British sponsored sanctions. I wonder if they have a word for 'idiot' on Mr Cook's home planet? 

Well, readers in Washington could maybe ask Dick Gephardt, I think he and Mr Cook might be related. I really don't want to second guess Richard's statement on why he is opposed to Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Could be his objection is based on the 'human rights' issue. Very noble. Could be he is concerned that cheaper labour in China might cost American jobs. That's a vote getter -- but bearing in mind that charity begins at home it is something I can sympathise with. After all, your average Chinese factory worker wouldn't be too concerned that his or her continued employment meant an American was on welfare. And vice-versa. Of course, welfare in China is somewhat less generous than in the United States.... but why would -- or should -- that concern an American? 

If jobs are the centre of Dick's objection, then I hope he extends and vocally expands his concern and objection to China's PNTR and membership in the World Trade Organisation to the other developing countries that are already WTO members and provide cheap sweat-shop labour for some of America's top companies in environmentally unfriendly factories. 

My own feelings about globalization notwithstanding, a rejection of China's PNTR will be seen as a slap in the face for Beijing -- and I steal words from the White House -- turn growing co-operation into confrontation. 

So, Dick, if you're going to do it, be a man and go all the way pal. Protect American jobs by insisting -- no, introduce legislation to stop US companies exploiting cheap labour and force their withdrawal from any developing country that pays less than the US minimum wage. Slap broad and sweeping tariffs on imports -- especially on those countries that have a less than enthusiastic record when it comes to protecting the environment and those that spend more on weapons than they do on education and health care. Or do away with tariffs altogether. 

Insist on sanctions against any and all countries that commit human rights violations or ignore United Nations resolutions -- or insist on the abolishment of sanctions. Insist on the indictment of any and all national leaders whose military has attacked civilian population centres -- or withdraw all the indictments. Anything less and you'll be branded as simply pandering to domestic voters, lobbyists and interest groups -- and, of course, of being anti-China. Go for it Dick, make a big noise.

Or return to your planet and take Robin Cook with you.

Click here for more of Chris Gelken's An Outsider Looking In.