Chen Guangcheng 2

My cherished interlocutors here seem to think that the vast right wing conspiracy includes everyone but themselves. I noted the obvious: the initial deal which American diplomats brokered on behalf of Chen Guangcheng was a shameful bungle. Was this a cheap rightwing shot on my part?

Here is another note from the VRWC, Los Angeles Times unit:

That U.S. officials bungled the rescue of blind dissident Chen Guangcheng from Chinese repression of his human rights work seems undisputed. But the diplomatic train wreck was also an international embarrassment for China, which may be why Beijing has so swiftly agreed to let Chen go abroad "to study."

Here is the New York Times:

China and the United States reached a deal Friday that calls for the dissident Chen Guangcheng to travel to the United States with his family, in what appeared to be a resolution to an eight-day diplomatic crisis that had threatened to strain the relationship between the two countries and left the Obama administration open to attacks from human rights activists and political opponents at home…

But the arrangement was unlikely to silence a fusillade of accusations that the Obama administration had bungled Mr. Chen's case by essentially handing him over to the Chinese authorities earlier this week, without ironclad assurances that he would be safe.

It wasn't just political opponents who objected to the initial deal. It was human rights activists as well and, I might add, Mr. Chen.

Better yet is how the Economist put it:

The incident raises three questions. Most immediately, did America's best diplomats let a brave man down? With Mr Chen out of their care, they now have little bargaining power. If they were duped by their Chinese counterparts, or too ready to accept their assurances, they will be taken as fools. If they struck a deal in haste, calculating that currencies and tariffs should eclipse the rights of an inconvenient blind man, they will be taken as knaves.

Fools or knaves are the only available choices but I note that they aren't mutually exclusive. The original deal the Embassy brokered, or thought it brokered, would have sent Mr. Chen back into the shark pool with only vague assurances that he would be treated fairly.

The Washington Post, in a fit of wishful fantasy, thought this was a breakthrough.

THE DEAL UNDER which Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng left the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on Wednesday was bold, risky and potentially groundbreaking for human rights in China. It could also prove disastrous…

By early Wednesday, the diplomats believed they had brokered a bargain under which Mr. Chen would be reunited with his family and allowed to attend law school in another city. Were it to follow through on those promises, the regime would break with a pattern of relentlessly hounding dissidents and human rights activists, a number of whom have been illegally confined to their homes.

If the diplomats believed what the Post says they believed, and what the Post obviously takes seriously, then they are indeed fools. From the Christian Science Monitor:

[Chen's] wife, Yuan Weijing, was detained by police when her husband's escape was discovered, and tied to a chair without food or drink for two days, Chen told reporters from the hospital where he is now undergoing medical tests and treatment for a broken foot suffered during his escape…

He Peirong, a family friend who drove Chen from his hometown to Beijing, was arrested by police in the southern city of Nanjing, where she lives, and held for several days before being allowed to go home. She has since posted a message on her Twitter account saying the police have forbidden her to talk to reporters.

Jiang Tianyong, a lawyer who tried to visit Chen in hospital on Thursday evening, was taken away by police and returned home at 3:00 a.m. on Friday morning after having been beaten up so badly that he had lost his hearing in one ear, his wife said in a post on Weibo, China's Twitter-like social media platform.

Guo Yushan, an NGO activist who also helped Chen stay out of police hands between his escape and his arrival at the US Embassy, was held by police for two days before being freed.

That is what was happening as American diplomats assured Mr. Chen

that they would carefully monitor the activist's fate, to ensure that he was no longer persecuted.

It is no wonder that Mr. Chen had second thoughts when the last American official left his hospital room and he realized that he was all alone.

It does look like Mr. Chen and his family will be allowed to leave China. I can't help noting this comment on my last post, unintentionally hilarious and grim at the same time:

The reports I'm seeing indicate Chen and his family will face no problems leaving China KB. This in a report posted at the Huffington Post: At a Foreign Ministry briefing, spokesman Liu Weimin also confirmed that Chen faces no pending criminal charges, indirectly acknowledging that the house arrest he and his family endured the past 20 months in their rural home was illegal. "According to Chinese laws, he is a regular citizen. He can absolutely go through regular formalities by normal means," Liu said.

No trouble at all for this regular citizen who has been subject to illegal house arrest for 20 months. Just make sure to pack enough sunscreen! That, and hope that no criminal charges suddenly appear or someone you care deeply about suddenly disappears.

The Washington Post, perhaps too far in not to double down, has this:

Prompted by Mr. Chen, U.S. diplomats managed to win Beijing's agreement to an unprecedented deal that would have allowed him to move to the city of Tianjin with his family and to enroll at a university.

The bargain fell apart not because of U.S. bungling or even Chinese backtracking but largely because Mr. Chen changed his mind once he left the embassy. His lawyer and other supporters told him his scheme was unworkable. While they may be right, it's unfortunate that the authorities' promises, which could have set a precedent for the treatment of dissidents, were never put to the test.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that the "the authorities' promises were never put to the test." It would also be rather unfortunate for Mr. Chen and his family and his friends and allies if those promises had been put the test. The outcome would not be hard to guess.

Gambling with dozens of lives on the basis of wishful thinking didn't fail because the U.S. bungled; it was the bungle. That the U.S. apparently brokered a more realistic and responsible deal after Mr. Chen had second thoughts doesn't change that fact. That seems indisputable to almost everyone.

Comments

[Erik Sean Estep]

KB: Thanks so much for posting this, it has been a tough week, had a mini stroke on Wednesday and have been out of the loop. As always, I appreciate your analysis. We don't always agree, but you always make me think.

[Bill Fleming]

What would your recommended solution have been, KB? What would you have done differently?

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: Getting Chen out of China was obviously the only real option once he set foot in the embassy. The deal that seems to have been worked out now, if it holds, is a solution. The original deal was a half-baked fantasy.

[Anne]

This affair can certainly be used as more fodder to demean and discredit Obama--as long as one limits one's characterizations to knaves and fools. Of course, career diplomats who know something of the Chinese culture, who must find ways to deal with the Chen business while advancing negotiations on other vital interests that are the reason for U.S. diplomatic presence there, and who are crucially aware of the limits of diplomatic power would have nothing to do with the agreements made. As long we are assigning blame for knavery and foolery, let us add Daniel Pearl and Travohn Martin and every other casualty of injustice to Obama's list of transgressions. My god, the diplomats were so feckless and cowardly in not invoking our nuclear ability.

The Washington Post and those who might think this was a tremendously difficult situation that some hardworking career diplomats worked hard to find an agreement on and eventually came up with what promises to be a good resolution can simply rest in the graveyard of fools. We should better follow the example of intransigence and failure set by the partisan resolve in Congress.

[Donald Pay]

This post seems like a classic attempt to coverup of your bungled analysis. You said Chen was "betrayed." Yet your solution to this issue (get Chen out of China) would have amounted to kidnapping, since that's not what Chen himself wanted. Chen wanted to move to a different place and attend university. That is not so far-fetched, as our diplomats and people who understand what's going on in China understand there are many academic demographers who are pushing an end to the one-child policy, and many in the government and party who are moving in that direction. My guess is Chen would have preferred to stay in China and contribute to that work.

[A.I.]

This post is just one more example your selective response syndrome/baffle em with bullshit blogging style KB. It didn't work on Bill, Anne or Donald and it won't work on me. So come on, what would you have done that would have been so different? And here are a few specifics:

Would you really have insisted he come to the U.S. even though he preferred to stay in China--as Donald says, kidnapped him?

Would you have continued to keep Chen at the embassy even after he said he wanted to leave?

How and where would you have treated the broken bones in Chen's foot if not in a hospital outside the embassy?

What would you have done differently to rescue his wife and children from the local authorities that held them--or would you have left them behind as Chen had done?

Would you also have rescued/protected the guy who gave Chen a ride and the lawyer that visited him and if so, how?

Chen is concerned about retaliation against other associates. Would you protect them all and if so, how?

There are no doubt other dissidents in China with stories equally compelling as Chen's. Are you not obliged to protect them too?

How would you attain an "iron-clad" commitment from the Chinese regarding anything?

And finally, where do you and the cynical so-n-so's you quote get off projecting the idea that the administration had some sort of magic wand they could have waved to solve all these problems but were too incompetent to use it?

There actually is something in these exchanges that is unintentionally hilarious and grim: Your acting as though China is the equivalent of 1983 Grenada in economic and military might and thus subject to the will of the United States. Last time I checked, that wasn't the case.

[Anne]

A.I. sounds like he's been there and done that and knows the "science" in "political science."

[Ken Blanchard]

One thing I am sure of, A.I.: NOTHING will work on you, or Donald, or Anne. It's you guys against me, the LA Times, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor, human rights activists and, I note, Chen Guangcheng. The fact that he lost all confidence in whatever the embassy staff thought it had brokered as soon as they left him alone tells us how he sees the deal. Sorry, Anne, but I think his opinion weighs more than "career diplomats who know something of the Chinese culture".

Bill alone seems the least bit thoughtful or concerned about Chen. What should the diplomats have done? They might have discouraged him from leaving, at least until they could work out something reliable. A.I. is right that there are not really any "ironclad guarantees" when working with Beijing, but some promises are better than others. Those made between figures at high positions in both governments are worth more than ambiguous wording from lower level apparatchiks. Protecting Chen's family and friends would have been very difficult, but at least we could protect him while he was on our soil.

If you think that calling my post bullshit is witty repartee, A.I., be my guest. Funny that I keep turning out to be right. The initial deal indeed amounted to a betrayal. As for the subsequent deal that the diplomats thought they had brokered, one which you and Bill expressed confidence in, have you been paying attention to how that is going?

[Donald Pay]

KB said: "They might have discouraged him from leaving..." Yeah, then what? Should they have cuffed him to the water cooler when he insisted on leaving? Do you think kidnapping is good foreign policy?

You just keep moving the football because you don't have a clue what you're taling about. You have had a very limited understanding of the facts of this case and you painted yourself into an untenable position early on. Now you imagine yourself backed up in every stupid little whim of yours by your faulty understanding of the articles you say you are reading, and grasping at any small detail that you think others might not catch. Game's over, KB.

Here's from Phillip Pan. Tell us again, when Chen decided to leave the embassy, were embassy staff supposed to physically detain him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/sunday-review/chen-guangchengs-final-escape.html

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: I read the piece you link to. Did you? I quote:

"American officials said the Chinese government pledged to relocate Mr. Chen and his family to a safe environment and to allow him to study in the nearby city of Tianjin. But by nightfall, the deal was coming apart: American diplomats had left him alone in the hospital as the police blocked visitors from reaching him and fellow activists warned him by phone not to trust Beijing’s promises."

Chen left the American embassy believing that a deal had been brokered to guarantee his safety. Had it? No. By the evidence you produce, I am right an you are wrong.

[Donald Pay]

You're like Lucy with the football, KB. You keep pulling it up. Everyone knows what you're doing, so don't think you're fooling anyone.

Chen left the embassy on his own free will, because he wanted to stay in China. You thought Americans should kidnap him, and keep him in the embassy, irrespective of Chen's wishes. The fact that any "deal" fell through or wasn't honored as Chen thought it should be or that he was subsequently convinced by others to change his mind comes after his initial decision to leave the embassy.

Now should American embassy personnel have continued to mind Chen in the hospital? Under what authority would an American offical be allowed to babysit a Chinese national? What would KB think if Obama would allow a Chinese minder to intervene in our domestic affair like that? Have a little common sense for once.

[Bill Fleming]

What is it you are trying to be "right" about, KB? It seems we are all agreed that human rights and solidarity with those fighting to secure them should be — and are in fact — our first national priority. Are you suggesting that anyone here on your blog, or in the Obama Administration doesn't see it that way?

[Riska]

I value you pointing this out beucase I've hardly ever seen like like that. For that reason I might possibly mention several of your factors by myself blog; Hopefully you're Okay with this. Do you assume possibly from the long term we can do the job together someway between our websites? Let me know what you feel.