Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Punishing China - Blame the Dragon, Slay the Ogre
«
H E
»
News and Politics :: Sino-American :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: Sino-N/SKorea :: News and Perspectives ::
email
posted Thursday, 20 October 2005
The often terse waters that denote the relationship between China and America could soon become a little bit rougher as lobbyists and law makers in Washington prepare to press home on a controversial new bill that could see China being censured for its long term assistance of a nation that Washington considers to be a 'rogue state'. Leaving some talking up the coming bill as being fight for 'justice', some wondering whether there is another side to the story that is not being told, and others fuming at the prospect of Washington signing into law a bill that they see as being little more than an act of aggression against two of America's long standing rivals.
While the US has long been a critic of North Korea’s poor human rights record, it has equally also long been a critic of China for its continuing policy of support towards its communist neighbor, with Washington repeatedly levelling the claim that Beijing has not only been acting to prop up Pyongyang and the North Korean state by offering it emergency aid and diplomatic support, but that it has also been actively assisting North Korea in committing human rights violations by denying safe passage to North Korean refugees found in China and, in many cases, actively returning them against their will.
In this light, there has been a growing movement in the US, urging Washington to intercede on behalf of North Korean refugees in China, and even to actively punish China for its role in returning them to North Korea.
One culmination of this movement has been the proposal of a controversial bill, dubbed the "Scoop Jackson National Security and Freedom Act"; a bill which, if signed into law, would empower Washington to impose sanction on China if it persists in hindering attempts by North Korean to seeking shelter.
The Aims
On paper, ‘Scoop Jackson’ has four primary goals:
Currently, Beijing refuses to grant North Koreans refugee status; instead classifying any who are found in Mainland China as illegal immigrants. In this vein, Beijing also routinely denies UNHCR officials access to North Koreans in China, on the grounds that they are not refugees, but instead are illegal immigrants who have entered China for economic purposes, and commonly repatriates them by force.
Beijing also largely ignores the issue of North Korean women who are smuggled into China, or are kidnapped, and forced to work as prostitutes in Chinese cities or to become brides for Chinese men.
Proponents of ‘Scoop Jackson’ hope that, through pressure placed on China by the bill, the US can remedy the dire situation faced by North Korean refugees in China, by ensuring them safe passage to foreign embassies in China without the fear of arrest and deportation, and by removing the obstacles put in place by Beijing which are currently preventing many North Korean who have succeeded in reaching foreign embassies from reaching South Korea.
The Sting
To accomplish its aims, ‘Scoop Jackson’ proposes that the US move to ‘separate’ China and North Korea by hitting at China’s most politically vulnerable spot, its economy, through the imposition of a 27.5% punitive tax on Chinese exports to the US. In the hope that Beijing will place the continuance of economic gains through trade with the US above its face based relationship with North Korea.
Under ‘Scoop Jackson’ China would be given a grace period of 180 days, from the bills initialization, to improve its treatment of North Korean refugees. This 180 period would then be followed by a 12 month period during which time China would have to sustain or enhance and improvement made to a level that is satisfactory to Washington face having the imposition of import quotas frozen to post 2004 levels.
History and Precedent
The ‘Scoop Jackson’ bill is named in memory of the late Democratic senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, and is being pushed by a broad combination of lobbyists, lawmakers, human rights groups and non-partisan ‘think tanks’.
The proposed bill is substantially based on the 1974 ‘Jackson-Vanik’ trade act amendment. An act, which was drafted to allow America to place economic sanctions, in the form of taxation and tariffs, on goods that were imported from countries lacking in free market economies and which prevented their citizens from emigrating.
‘Jackson-Vanik’ was largely initiated after the former Soviet Union began issuing fines to emigrating citizens who had gone through higher education, in order to prevent the leaching of scientists and educated workers out of the Union, and at forcing Moscow to remove impediments that were preventing Russian Jews from freely emigrating to Israel.
Alternative Agenda
Though welcomed by human rights groups, ‘Scoop Jackson’ is the subject of sharp criticism from some elements who have voiced that, while it is being tabled as a humanitarian bill aimed at protecting North Korean refugees, and assisting their passage to safe countries, the proposed bill carries with it a substantial number of additional motivates; some of which are less about resolving the North Korea refugee issue, and more to do with bringing about the final collapse of the North Korean state through any means possible, including the pressuring of China .
Some of the accusations of alternative agendas include:
That was then, this is now
While the earlier 'Jackson-Vanik' proposal was passed unanimously by both the upper and lower houses of the US government in 1974, and allowed approximately 1.5 million people to legally emigrate from the soviet union (500,000 to the US, 1 Million to Israel), it is thought that 'Scoop Jackson’ will have a far more difficult time being passed into US law in the present day, and that it will garner far less support from politicians, lobbyists, and the public because, although 'Jackson-Vanik' and 'Scoop Jackson' share many of the same moral elements, their target group and target nation are very different.
It is this difference that is likely to be the crux of 'Scoop Jackson's' difficulties in being passed into law.
In 1974 'Jackson-Vanik' largely targeted emigrating Christians and Jews. Both of which groups hold substantial political and economic power in the US, and are able to muster a significant amount of support among the America people, allowing them to command a high priority among American lawmakers. Alternately, 'Scoop Jackson' targets North Korean refugees, a group that holds little importance in the US, and which has only base public sympathy, giving them little political sway over lawmakers.
Additionally, while 'Jackson-Vanik' was aimed against the USSR; a strategic and military competitor to America in which the US had few fiscal stakes, 'Scoop Jackson' targets China; a country in which US companies have made substantial investments, and upon which the US commercial sector is highly dependant. Meaning that, while the US suffered little from placing sanctions on the USSR, placing sanctions on China would damage America's economy by driving up prices for American consumers while driving down profits for American investors and retailer.
Supporters of 'Scoop Jackson' have described the bill as being "subject of serious discussions", though it remains to be seen how readily US law makers will pass a law that will lower US standards of living by driving up the price of consumer goods, and which will effectively act as a tax on goods produced by US companies who manufacture in China, in order to support a cause that nothing to offer American voters.
Irony
With pressure for the adoption of ‘Scoop Jackson’ being maintained, two substantial ironies have arisen from the bill. The first being that the original 'Jackson Vanik' amendment DID apply to China, and that it could have been used against Beijing in exactly the same way that it was used against the Soviet Union.
However, while China could have been subject to sanctions under ‘Jackson Vanik’ at any time since it was signed into law, Beijing has been granted an almost constant ‘special exemption’ from the bill by presidential decree.
The second substantial irony that has arisen is that, while ‘Scoop Jackson’ is aimed at punishing China for its interference with foreign national who are seeking refugee status, it makes no effort to punish China for interfering in the efforts of its own people if they are seeking refugee status.
It also makes no effort to punish China for similar violations that are being committed against the citizens of Tibet and East Turkistan, both of which are currently under Chinese occupation.
The bill also does not substantively take into account the possible repercussions of China caving in to US demands and allowing North Koreans to freely cross through its territory and claim asylum.
Repercussions which include:
The bill also does not substantively take into account statements made by North Korea that it sees efforts to assist its citizens in leaving as being aggressive acts to which it has threatened ‘retaliatory measures’ against South Korea and Japan, statements which should be given some credence given the instability of the North Korean regime and its (supposed) possession of a nuclear deterrent.
During 2004, almost 2900 North Koreans managed to flee to South Korea. Findings brought before the South Korean government indicate that, were obtaining refugee status to become easier, this number could rise to 10,000 per year. Substantially more than South Korea could manage.
Hypocrisy
In addition to pointing out the possibility of hidden agendas within ‘Scoop Jackson’, both those aimed at China and North Korea, and the ironies of the proposed bill, some China watchers have also voiced the opinion that the drafting of a bill to punish China for human rights abuses being committed in co-operation with North Korea is 'an act of gross hypocrisy' because the current US administration, along with many past administrations on both sides of America’s two party democratic system, have a historically recognized record in this area that is less than glowing.
A record that includes 'propping up' dictatorships, supporting aggressively expansionist regimes, supporting countries that engage in gross violations of human rights, and of imposing puppet regimes on other countries when and where it has suited US foreign policy to do so. All of which has, in the eyes of some, made the US ‘no better than China’.
Bill Number Two
The proposing of the ‘Scoop Jackson’ bill follows hot on the heals of the formalization of the controversial "North Korean Human Rights Act 2004", which was signed into law early in 2005.
The "North Korean Human Rights Act 2004" directs Washington to maintain a slush fund with an annual value of $US24 Million that can be paid out to groups seeking to subvert the North Korean Government and bring about regime change, a byword for the extra judicial removal of a foreign Government from power, by assisting refugees and defectors in escaping from North Korea.
Despite its small size and low shadow on world affairs, North Korea has proven to be a constant thorn in the side of the US, and its refusal to kow-tow in the face of American’s military and economic prowess has been highly embarrassing to Washington both because of its potential to stir defiance in other nations, and because it serves as a constant reminder of how North Korean forces, substantially enhanced by their communist allies, defeated the US and its western allies during the Korean war. Forcing them into a shameful stalemate that saw Korea being divided along its east west axis, and which has yet to be resolved by force or diplomacy.
While the US has long been a critic of North Korea’s poor human rights record, it has equally also long been a critic of China for its continuing policy of support towards its communist neighbor, with Washington repeatedly levelling the claim that Beijing has not only been acting to prop up Pyongyang and the North Korean state by offering it emergency aid and diplomatic support, but that it has also been actively assisting North Korea in committing human rights violations by denying safe passage to North Korean refugees found in China and, in many cases, actively returning them against their will.
In this light, there has been a growing movement in the US, urging Washington to intercede on behalf of North Korean refugees in China, and even to actively punish China for its role in returning them to North Korea.
|
|
"China should not have a cost-free policy of supporting Kim Jong-il” Michael Horowitz, Hudson Institute (Think Tank), US |
|
One culmination of this movement has been the proposal of a controversial bill, dubbed the "Scoop Jackson National Security and Freedom Act"; a bill which, if signed into law, would empower Washington to impose sanction on China if it persists in hindering attempts by North Korean to seeking shelter.
|
|
"[The US may take ‘appropriate action’ if China]
interferes with the flow of North Korean refugees, causes unlawful
repatriation of North Korean refugees, and impedes access by the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees to North Korean refugees." Scoop Jackson National Security and Freedom Act - Proposed |
|
The Aims
On paper, ‘Scoop Jackson’ has four primary goals:
- To stop Beijing’s policy of forcefully repatriating North Korean refugees found in China.
- To force Beijing to grant refugee status to North Korean refugees
- To force Beijing in to allowing the UNHCR access to North Korean refugees in China.
- To stem the trafficking of North Korean women for the Chinese sex trade.
Currently, Beijing refuses to grant North Koreans refugee status; instead classifying any who are found in Mainland China as illegal immigrants. In this vein, Beijing also routinely denies UNHCR officials access to North Koreans in China, on the grounds that they are not refugees, but instead are illegal immigrants who have entered China for economic purposes, and commonly repatriates them by force.
Beijing also largely ignores the issue of North Korean women who are smuggled into China, or are kidnapped, and forced to work as prostitutes in Chinese cities or to become brides for Chinese men.
Proponents of ‘Scoop Jackson’ hope that, through pressure placed on China by the bill, the US can remedy the dire situation faced by North Korean refugees in China, by ensuring them safe passage to foreign embassies in China without the fear of arrest and deportation, and by removing the obstacles put in place by Beijing which are currently preventing many North Korean who have succeeded in reaching foreign embassies from reaching South Korea.
The Sting
To accomplish its aims, ‘Scoop Jackson’ proposes that the US move to ‘separate’ China and North Korea by hitting at China’s most politically vulnerable spot, its economy, through the imposition of a 27.5% punitive tax on Chinese exports to the US. In the hope that Beijing will place the continuance of economic gains through trade with the US above its face based relationship with North Korea.
|
|
“It is our intention more and more to force China to
choose between full support for Kim Jong-il or good relations with the
U.S. We are going to work very hard to say that China can't have both" Michael Horowitz, Hudson Institute, US |
|
Under ‘Scoop Jackson’ China would be given a grace period of 180 days, from the bills initialization, to improve its treatment of North Korean refugees. This 180 period would then be followed by a 12 month period during which time China would have to sustain or enhance and improvement made to a level that is satisfactory to Washington face having the imposition of import quotas frozen to post 2004 levels.
History and Precedent
The ‘Scoop Jackson’ bill is named in memory of the late Democratic senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, and is being pushed by a broad combination of lobbyists, lawmakers, human rights groups and non-partisan ‘think tanks’.
The proposed bill is substantially based on the 1974 ‘Jackson-Vanik’ trade act amendment. An act, which was drafted to allow America to place economic sanctions, in the form of taxation and tariffs, on goods that were imported from countries lacking in free market economies and which prevented their citizens from emigrating.
‘Jackson-Vanik’ was largely initiated after the former Soviet Union began issuing fines to emigrating citizens who had gone through higher education, in order to prevent the leaching of scientists and educated workers out of the Union, and at forcing Moscow to remove impediments that were preventing Russian Jews from freely emigrating to Israel.
Alternative Agenda
Though welcomed by human rights groups, ‘Scoop Jackson’ is the subject of sharp criticism from some elements who have voiced that, while it is being tabled as a humanitarian bill aimed at protecting North Korean refugees, and assisting their passage to safe countries, the proposed bill carries with it a substantial number of additional motivates; some of which are less about resolving the North Korea refugee issue, and more to do with bringing about the final collapse of the North Korean state through any means possible, including the pressuring of China .
|
|
"China could produce regime transformation [in North
Korea] in 15 minutes if it wants to but up to now, China has not yet
paid a price in terms of its relations with the U.S for supporting Kim
Jong-Il’s gulags, torture and gas chambers. Michael Horowitz, Hudson Institute, US |
|
Some of the accusations of alternative agendas include:
- Weakening the North Korean State by pressuring China into withdrawing its support on a broad range of additional (non-refugee) political and social issues.
- Increasing the international isolation of North Korea by creating a tool that can be readily expanded to cover other countries and other issues.
- Decreasing the remaining viability of the North Korean State through depopulation and ‘brain drain’ by making it easier and safer for people to leave.
- Increasing US access to ‘human resources’ (defectors) who can be used against North Korea.
That was then, this is now
While the earlier 'Jackson-Vanik' proposal was passed unanimously by both the upper and lower houses of the US government in 1974, and allowed approximately 1.5 million people to legally emigrate from the soviet union (500,000 to the US, 1 Million to Israel), it is thought that 'Scoop Jackson’ will have a far more difficult time being passed into US law in the present day, and that it will garner far less support from politicians, lobbyists, and the public because, although 'Jackson-Vanik' and 'Scoop Jackson' share many of the same moral elements, their target group and target nation are very different.
It is this difference that is likely to be the crux of 'Scoop Jackson's' difficulties in being passed into law.
In 1974 'Jackson-Vanik' largely targeted emigrating Christians and Jews. Both of which groups hold substantial political and economic power in the US, and are able to muster a significant amount of support among the America people, allowing them to command a high priority among American lawmakers. Alternately, 'Scoop Jackson' targets North Korean refugees, a group that holds little importance in the US, and which has only base public sympathy, giving them little political sway over lawmakers.
Additionally, while 'Jackson-Vanik' was aimed against the USSR; a strategic and military competitor to America in which the US had few fiscal stakes, 'Scoop Jackson' targets China; a country in which US companies have made substantial investments, and upon which the US commercial sector is highly dependant. Meaning that, while the US suffered little from placing sanctions on the USSR, placing sanctions on China would damage America's economy by driving up prices for American consumers while driving down profits for American investors and retailer.
Supporters of 'Scoop Jackson' have described the bill as being "subject of serious discussions", though it remains to be seen how readily US law makers will pass a law that will lower US standards of living by driving up the price of consumer goods, and which will effectively act as a tax on goods produced by US companies who manufacture in China, in order to support a cause that nothing to offer American voters.
Irony
With pressure for the adoption of ‘Scoop Jackson’ being maintained, two substantial ironies have arisen from the bill. The first being that the original 'Jackson Vanik' amendment DID apply to China, and that it could have been used against Beijing in exactly the same way that it was used against the Soviet Union.
However, while China could have been subject to sanctions under ‘Jackson Vanik’ at any time since it was signed into law, Beijing has been granted an almost constant ‘special exemption’ from the bill by presidential decree.
The second substantial irony that has arisen is that, while ‘Scoop Jackson’ is aimed at punishing China for its interference with foreign national who are seeking refugee status, it makes no effort to punish China for interfering in the efforts of its own people if they are seeking refugee status.
It also makes no effort to punish China for similar violations that are being committed against the citizens of Tibet and East Turkistan, both of which are currently under Chinese occupation.
The bill also does not substantively take into account the possible repercussions of China caving in to US demands and allowing North Koreans to freely cross through its territory and claim asylum.
Repercussions which include:
- The impact on South Korea society and economy of an increased flow of North Korean refugees seeking asylum.
- The potential for spies, saboteurs, and other North Korean intelligence entering other countries under refugee status.
- The potential for North Korea to take ‘increased measures’ in order to stop refugees from escaping, resulting in even more human rights violations.
The bill also does not substantively take into account statements made by North Korea that it sees efforts to assist its citizens in leaving as being aggressive acts to which it has threatened ‘retaliatory measures’ against South Korea and Japan, statements which should be given some credence given the instability of the North Korean regime and its (supposed) possession of a nuclear deterrent.
During 2004, almost 2900 North Koreans managed to flee to South Korea. Findings brought before the South Korean government indicate that, were obtaining refugee status to become easier, this number could rise to 10,000 per year. Substantially more than South Korea could manage.
Hypocrisy
In addition to pointing out the possibility of hidden agendas within ‘Scoop Jackson’, both those aimed at China and North Korea, and the ironies of the proposed bill, some China watchers have also voiced the opinion that the drafting of a bill to punish China for human rights abuses being committed in co-operation with North Korea is 'an act of gross hypocrisy' because the current US administration, along with many past administrations on both sides of America’s two party democratic system, have a historically recognized record in this area that is less than glowing.
A record that includes 'propping up' dictatorships, supporting aggressively expansionist regimes, supporting countries that engage in gross violations of human rights, and of imposing puppet regimes on other countries when and where it has suited US foreign policy to do so. All of which has, in the eyes of some, made the US ‘no better than China’.
Bill Number Two
The proposing of the ‘Scoop Jackson’ bill follows hot on the heals of the formalization of the controversial "North Korean Human Rights Act 2004", which was signed into law early in 2005.
The "North Korean Human Rights Act 2004" directs Washington to maintain a slush fund with an annual value of $US24 Million that can be paid out to groups seeking to subvert the North Korean Government and bring about regime change, a byword for the extra judicial removal of a foreign Government from power, by assisting refugees and defectors in escaping from North Korea.
Despite its small size and low shadow on world affairs, North Korea has proven to be a constant thorn in the side of the US, and its refusal to kow-tow in the face of American’s military and economic prowess has been highly embarrassing to Washington both because of its potential to stir defiance in other nations, and because it serves as a constant reminder of how North Korean forces, substantially enhanced by their communist allies, defeated the US and its western allies during the Korean war. Forcing them into a shameful stalemate that saw Korea being divided along its east west axis, and which has yet to be resolved by force or diplomacy.
View Comments/Add a Comment (3)
1. Sarah Smith left...
Friday, 21 October 2005 4:56 am
There ought to be a law against naming a law the "Human Rights" or
"National Security" or "Freedom" Act, because if one opposes the content of
the proposal, one is attacked as being against human rights or security or
freedom. Sometimes the content of the proposed legislation only tenuously
relates to its name, but the name is taken for the thing itself.
Appearance vs Reality
2. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...
Saturday, 22 October 2005 3:42 am :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
The same same law should also cover branding people as 'unpatriotic' if
they disagree with you.