THE PLANK MARCH 5, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jon hardly needs my help in his debate with Stephen Walt and company over Chas Freeman. But I have a proposition: Instead of endlessly speculating about the underlying motivations of Freeman's critics--which is a somewhat silly game since those motivations probably vary wildly--why don't Walt and others answer a very simple question: Do they or do they not find Freeman's views on Tiananmen Square alarming? Look, I strongly disagree with Freeman's views on Israel (for the record, I would describe myself as a liberal Zionist), but, given the wide range of views about Israel on the left these days, I'm not particularly surprised that someone whose opinions on the subject clash with my own has found his way into the Obama administration. What does surprise me is that someone with Freeman's views on human rights has ended up with a fairly prominent post. I already know where Walt--and others who have been attacking the Freeman attackers--stand on Israel. But I am genuinely curious to know what they think of Freeman's views on how authoritarian governments should treat their own people--a topic they don't seem to want to engage. For my part, I am horrified by the idea that someone with such a dim view of those who essentially risked their lives for liberalism (i.e. the Tiananmen protesters) would now serve in a liberal administration. (Imagine if an appointee had made similar comments about 1960s civil rights protesters in the south; we liberals would be justly enraged.) I don't know whether Walt identifies as a liberal, but many of the people who are currently criticizing the anti-Freeman crowd do. Let's leave aside the Michael Goldfarbs of the world; they aren't interested in the fate of liberalism, and I don't particularly care what they think. Instead, why don't we liberals just stop and answer the question: Are Freeman's views on Tiananmen acceptable to us or not? And if not, shouldn't we all be equally appalled by his selection?
--Richard Just
12 comments
Sorry to be so unoriginal, but I have to do this--on the Yglesias blog, one commenter writes:
Angry Voter Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
"Perhaps, Matt, you might accept the idea the Freeman’s hyper-critical views of Israel had the ironic effect of insulating his controversial (and perhaps disqualifying) views about the Saudis and the Chinese.
"I would suggest that if China and Saudi views were all we knew about him, it would be impossible to support him."
BINGO, BINGO, BINGO.
- dylanposer
March 6, 2009 at 1:19am
Good call, dylanposer.
- rozenson
March 6, 2009 at 1:32am
The problem here, Mr. poser, is that no one is discussing Freeman's actual views. What's being discussed are out-of-context soundbites and random extrapolations based upon them.
Freeman is said that the situation at Tianamen was allowed to deteriorate disastrously, which is in my view an unassailable fact. He never said or implied that the massacre was an appropriate response, but it became entirely predictable, if not inevitable, when the chaotic "leadership" of the protesters was unable to pull itself together sufficiently to cut a deal.
On Israel and Saudi Arabia, Freeman's views are solidly in the mainstream--hardly expressions of "fanaticism", although the same cannot be said for those of some of his detractors. I don't agree with him here, but see no danger in having such views on the table in serious policy debate.
- Robert Powell
March 6, 2009 at 4:12am
What are his views on Saudi Arabia??? I read in tnr that he once paid King Abdullaha compliment - what exactly am I to take away from this? This seems like the sort of things diplomats do.
So - please - point me to an op-ed or a paper or some kind of policy which shows how this guy is such a radical.
- benberger
March 6, 2009 at 5:45am
Robert Powell: "Freeman is said that the situation at Tianamen was allowed to deteriorate disastrously, which is in my view an unassailable fact."
Deteriorate disastrously? Into what?
- rozenson
March 6, 2009 at 9:08am
benebrger washingtontimes.com/.../foreign-ties-of-nominee-queried
- dhuey0
March 6, 2009 at 9:26am
Has everyone gone crazy?
Did we not just live through eight years of an administration in which public servants in supposedly non-political positions were in fact chosen for their political beliefs? Did we not just live through eight years of an administration in which intelligence was vetted for political acceptability? Are we determined to do the same thing again?
It looks like Obama's going to cave on this, which I find profoundly depressing.
dhuey- OH MY GOD, QUERIED?! Well, there's obviously no need to wait for the RESULTS of the query. The fact that it was CALLED FOR is disqualification enough.
P.S. It's so hard to choose the most ironic part of this situation, but my favorite is the Weekly Standard criticizing Freeman for calling our elected representatives "congresscritters" in a private email. www.weeklystandard.com/.../freeman_on_congrescritters.asp
- ratnerstar
March 6, 2009 at 9:55am
rozenson: "Deteriorate disastrously? Into what?"
Violence, perhaps.
- ironyroad
March 6, 2009 at 11:21am
First, he is NOT being nominated for a human rights related position, so his views on Tiannamen Square are not relevant. Second, his enemies are thugs and assholes, and Obama needs to establish that they do not have veto power over his Middle East appointments (first Zinni, now this guy), and that he is not their Mr. Stepinfetchit when it comes to their warped fantasies about the Middle East.
- gurdjieff66
March 6, 2009 at 11:34am
I am far less concerned about Freeman's opinions than I am about the fact that he has been in the employ of both Saudi Arabia and China, and for very non-trivial sums. I find it completely unacceptable that someone in high office in the United States, particularly as part of the security apparatus, should have been in the employ of foreign powers, any foreign powers. That makes it impossible ever to be confident that his work for our country could be unbiased by the interests of his once and more than likely future employers. While it is not morally or legally wrong to accept such employment, it is a disqualification from certain positions.
- roidubouloi
March 6, 2009 at 12:40pm
Ditto ratnerstar.
The fact that someone once worked for a foreign power should not be a disqualification. I'm not aware of anything in Freeman's past employment that would constitute a conflict of interest or, moreover, anything about it that would cause a fair-minded person to question his patriotism and commitment to our national security. If roi or anyone else knows of something specific, let's have it. So far this whole episode looks like hysteria to me.
For those who may be too young to remember and/or too lazy to look it up, the situation in Tianamen Square had deteriorated into a terrifying, filthy, chaotic mess, with no end in sight. As Freeman said, no country would allow something like that in it's capitol for long. This doesn't mean he supported the crackdown, but that he thinks the situation should have been dealt with sooner, presumably by some kind of negotiation and compromise, making the bloody crackdown unnecessary.
It will be a very bad sign if Obama caves to the lynch-mob on this one. So far we have all sorts of special envoys appointed and wonderful foreign trips, but in actual policy we don't seem to know what we're doing in Afghanistan or Iraq, or about Iran, and have just given Poland and the Czech Republic the Anthony Zinni treatment. I'm looking for signs of foreign policy competence, and so far I'm not seeing any.
- Robert Powell
March 6, 2009 at 1:06pm
Oops, I should have referred to Walt, not Mearsheimer.
- roidubouloi
March 6, 2009 at 4:48pm