Realism and China
The controversy over Chas Freeman, who recently withdrew after being appointed by President Obama as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, has elicited a number of strong opinions in the blogosphere since his appointment was first announced in mid-February.
For those unaware of Freeman and this particular kerfuffle, a useful time line can be found here.
Essentially, objection to Freeman's appointment rested on two principal issues. One, Freeman enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Saudi government as ex-ambassador and made several comments criticizing Israel. Two, Freeman defended the 1989 government crackdown of students in Beijing.
The journalist who has written most extensively in opposition to Freeman, as far as I can tell, is Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. Two journalists I read who have defended Freeman's appointment are Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows of The Atlantic.
In what he hopes to be his final post about Freeman, Chait wrote this weekend about the diplomat's reaction to 6/4. Within his blog post, Chait quotes an e-mail Freeman wrote discussing the '89 crackdown. An excerpt:
...the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.
For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be.
In an earlier piece he wrote for The Washington Post, Chait produces a similar excerpt and notes that "This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum" No attempt is made to analyze Freeman's comments; Chait presents them as being so clearly objectionable that any refutation would be self-evident and unnecessary.
Chait does correctly identify Freeman as a realist, and realism does have a tendency to seem heartless to its detractors, just as neo-conservatism seems dangerously naive.
Yet he (Chait) fails to explain why Freeman's particular point of view somehow falls beyond the boundary of reasonable disagreement and into "reductio ad absurdum". I agree that a lot of people, myself included, hold a different opinion of the crackdown than does Freeman. But from my experience living in China, his point of view is hardly cold-blooded and reprehensible. In fact, I'd say a fair number of Chinese people, speaking frankly, would agree with him.
Secondly, I fail to understand why Freeman's realist-inspired foreign policy opinions should somehow disqualify him from the post Obama chose for him. After all, a man in Freeman's intended position would hardly be given carte-blanche authority to devise Sino-American policy. He would have reported to Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence. He would have been beneath, among others, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones, and of course, Vice President Joseph Biden and President Obama himself.
Presumably, within such a group, there would be some who would hold alternate interpretations of the crackdown than Freeman. In fact, I imagine Obama chose Freeman in an effort to avoid the sort of group-think that plagued the Bush Administration.
The failed appointment indicates, once again, that on certain issues the range of acceptable opinion remains extremely narrow, a disheartening thought.
