Reason: We are talking just a few days after the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Was the democracy movement in Beijing a historical blip?
Cox: No. The desire for freedom in China is as strong as ever before. The 1989 effort almost succeeded. The fact that it failed in 1989, the fact that the leaders--over 1,000 of them--were executed does not mean that one-fifth of the world's population wishes to be held under the thumb of communism forever.
Reason: What do you think relations between the United States and China will look like in 2009?
Cox: I hope that we have a completely free exchange of people, ideas, and commerce between the United States of America and the Republic of China, no longer the People's Republic of China.
Reason: Some commentators think the early years of the next century will be marked by confrontation, perhaps even outright conflict among Asian powers, India, China, Pakistan. What is the U.S. strategic interest in the region?
Cox: I went to New Delhi and met with the president and prime minister of India two years ago, and Prime Minister Gujral told me that the PRC was exercising a pincer movement on India. He pointed specifically to the deployment of nuclear missiles in Tibet, to the submarines in the Indian Ocean--which we now know will soon have U.S.-designed nuclear warheads--and to the fact that Burma had been turned into a PLA armed camp and Pakistan was being armed by the PRC as an irritant to India.
We have a history of cordial relations with Pakistan. These days we have no reason to prefer India or Pakistan, and a lot of good reasons to help them resolve their dispute in Kashmir. If we devoted one ounce of the tons of energy that is being applied to our policy of engagement with the PRC to the largest democracy on Earth, I think the early gains would be impressive. Beating up on the PRC has not and probably will not work as a trade policy. But there's no reason in the world that we cannot be equally nice to India, China's rival.
That negotiating leverage will more than anything improve our relations with the PRC. At the same time, it offers us the prospect of opening up new markets in the most populous country on the earth. The most populous country on earth in 2020 is India, not the PRC. As justification for his China policy, Richard Nixon said it is difficult to ignore a billion people. We are doing a fine job of ignoring a billion people in India today.
Reason: One of the great transmitters of American ideals and principles is America's open media. Might it be a good idea to include in any trade deal we cut with China a provision that it allows in American media?
Cox: Rupert Murdoch won a concession from the PRC just a few years ago for Star TV to have satellite rights. But in turn, he had to agree that the PRC's propaganda ministry could exclude anything they found objectionable. It is not required by nature that all trade is liberating. It is possible that Star TV, even though it is only broadcasting approved information, is nonetheless a better foot in the door than nothing at all. But we should not think in some sort of politically Calvinistic way that positive results are foreordained just because somebody is making money.
Reason: Environmental and labor provisions are often included in trade negotiations. Is it legitimate for open access to media to be a part of them as well?
Cox: Of course. Right now, the PRC is building an intranet, so all of the Chinese citizens who think they are logging onto the Internet are really logging onto an environment in which all foreign news, and even financial news, will be excluded. It requires a great deal of advanced technology to pull off something so audacious. Undoubtedly the PRC will be able to buy it.
Reason: That seems to be the backdrop of what we are talking about--the movement of technology and information across borders. Repressive regimes like China's seem to want to cherry-pick technology for the state while keeping information from the public. Is there anything that U.S. policy can do to change that?
Cox: Some of the things are so obvious that they are often overlooked. The president of the United States made a 10-day trip to the PRC. He refused to meet with the founders of the Chinese Democratic Party while he was there. At the same time, he pointedly called Jiang Zemin "the right leader at the right time." The message was not lost on the Communist Party. They rounded up the leaders of the Democratic Party, who attempted to register within the rules, and put them in jail, where they still remain.
Reason: In an op-ed, you write, "The exercise of joining the democracies together behind an international export-control regime, like the annual human rights resolution in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, is important." Could you expand on that?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.15.10 @ 2:37AM|#
xfhxghgfhc