Home › Policy › Social Issues › Human Rights

Globalization: The Promises and The Perils, U.S. and Asian Responses

Share

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)
enlarge image

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)


Question and Answer Session

1. Mr. Obud : I'm Calvin Obud, a member of the Asia Society. As I understand it, one of the reasons that the US Congress balked at meetings its obligations to pay its dues to the UN was the population control issue. The Clinton administration, as I understand it, reached an agreement with Congress. I was wondering how that agreement would effect your hopes for social investment and so forth? Thank you.

Dr. Sadik : That's a very interesting question because when the US had that clause, the Mexico City clause, as its called, on the UN arrears, it approved funding for UN FPA, the same Congress. We got money from the US Congress, while at the same time, the UN was not getting its funding. As you know, then finally Mr. Clinton agreed to accept some modified language on what is called the Mexico City language. The Mexico City languages, in fact, prohibited US organizations from supporting abortion, even from resources that they have collected from other sources. If they promoted abortion, they would not get any US funding. That's called the Mexico City Policy. The refinement that Mr. Clinton accepted was that the limit of that would be fifteen million dollars. The discontinuing of funding the UN FPA happened in 1985 when President Reagan was the President. In 1985, the US made the largest contribution to the UN FPA. In 1986, when they decided to stop funding UN FPA until Mr. Clinton came into power, that was because of the program in China. They wanted a small program in China to change all China's human rights - which, of course was not absolutely possible - and to change the China policy on abortion and so on. It was very clear from all the general accounting office inspections, a follow up program and many congressional reviews that went to examine our program in China, that our program itself did not support abortion or the one child family policy.

Nevertheless, because China policy was so linked with human rights and so on in the Congress, that many in the Congress were opposed to any funds going for population programs in China. Since President Clinton became President, UN FPA's funding has been restored and we've been getting funding every year except for 1999 when the Congress passed a bill again somehow de-funding UN FPA for one year. President Clinton accepted it in exchange for the IMF funding.

What they said was something had to be given up in order to get what was the highest good and at that time, bail out of the East Asian countries. Therefore, the IMF got its funding and UN FPA didn't.

M.Hunter | 07:29:10 12:57am
Usually when we speak of Asian globalization and its perils we speak about China. I had the privilege of having Robert Sutter as my professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. This scholar possesses a truly incredible grasp of China and the issues surrounding her Rise in Asia. I can earnestly recommend anyone remotely interested in Asian affairs to purchase his book and take advantage of Professor Sutter's expertise in the region. According to Sutter's theory, historically, China has had hegemonic ambitions. Not only she portrays her own struggles as of universal significance, she also keeps a close watch of countries around her periphery as if they are naturally within her sphere of influence. Her political leaders are hypersensitive to criticisms and tend to behave defensively. The Chinese plot their policies and strategies, not much guided by principles but mainly on a case-by-case bases. They are more likely to go after short-term gains than for long-term benefits. As a result, Chinese foreign policy tends to be capricious and disruptive. In Sino-US relations in particular, China has been long suspicious of U.S. ulterior motives and is actively hedging against U.S. policies through bilateral and regional actions. In the same vein, Sutter views China's recently totted "peaceful rising" with suspicion. Whether China has truly renounced aggressive posture in her international dealings, or she just says so to "bid time" in order to secure economic growth, remains to be seen. As how to engage a rising China, Sutter sees Bush administration's approach as a potential model: keep her at arms length, do not give any unwarranted expectations (as Clinton administration has purportedly done), and stand firm. My personal observation is, although there is some truth to many of his assertion, Sutter's ultimate fallacy is that he uses a liberalist standard to criticize China in order to justify U.S. own realist strategy.
Orchard | 05:19:10 04:30pm
Ambassador Platt should be commended on his efforts to introduce the issue of Economic expansion and crisis and it's effect on the population of Asia to the American people.

Post new comment

Your comments are welcome, please adhere to our guidelines

Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; nor will profane, abusive or threatening posts.

Keep it short (150 words or less), Stay on topic.

Asia Society reserves the right to moderate all comments and remove or edit for guideline violations. Thank you.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.