Tyrone Siu/Reuters

Even before his trip to China, President Obama showed deference to China’s leaders by postponing a meeting with the Dalai Lama until after his trip. During his visit, he did not meet with Chinese political activists and chose not to confront the Beijing government on human rights and its treatment of dissidents.

What effect will this muted approach have? Will it be more, or less, productive for getting the Chinese government to engage in a dialogue about human rights, or will it make any difference at all?

Where Westerners Slip Up

Robert Barnett is the director of Modern Tibetan Studies at Columbia and the author of “Lhasa: Streets with Memories” and “Tibetan Modernities.”

President Obama’s policy team inherited an America verging on moral and financial bankruptcy. So their decision to try to restore America’s standing and to establish a cooperative relationship with China was well-judged.

Obama is right to avoid hectoring, but needs to avoid concessions on the details.

But the challenge for Western powers, former or actual colonizers, is to convey criticism of another state without appearing to insult it. Especially with China, any perceived bullying will be used to extract a concession before allowing cooperation on other issues.

Beijing’s tactics on the Tibet issue are understandable and successful. In 2007 it upgraded its position on meetings by foreign leaders with the Dalai Lama [as] to an attack on China’s “core interests.” Actually for foreign leaders such meetings with the Dalai Lama are symbolic, designed to impress their domestic voters. But in the rush to avoid tensions with China, foreign leaders tend to make concessions scripted by Beijing, such as restating their acceptance of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.

Read more… Germany did this after Chancellor Merkel met the Dalai Lama in 2007 and France did it this spring after a token meeting between President Sarkozy and the Tibetan leader. The British recognized China’s sovereignty over Tibet for the first time in October 2008, fearing pressure from China before even having scheduled any meeting with the Dalai Lama. These concessions to Chinese sovereignty were treated as formulaic by the Western leaders but in fact were substantive in Chinese terms. Amongst other things, the British concession has led to India being increasingly isolated in its position on its border with China, so that now India-Chinese relations are at their most tense in 20 years. President Obama is right to improve relations with China but wrong to treat issues like Tibet, Xinjiang, the Falun Gong religious movement, political arrests or individual rights as marginal for China or its neighbors. He is right to avoid hectoring, but needs to avoid concessions on the details, which often are important. For example, when he mentioned Tibet, the other key issues should have been named too. If he wanted to give a concession, a standard Chinese formulation should have been avoided. If he wanted to recognize China’s claim to Tibet, current terms would have been better than vague historic ones that cover eons. He called for dialogue when he should have referred to “substantive dialogue,” stressing the outcome not the process. So far, China appears better at the minutiae of international chess. But the Obama team can be expected to get more adroit and constructive in these matters as its relationship with Beijing deepens and develops.

Oratory for Lawyers

Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom is a professor of history at University of California, Irvine, a co-founder of “The China Beat” blog, and editor of the Journal of Asian Studies. He is the author of “China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know,” which will be published in April.

Rather than speculate this early on the effectiveness of the Obama administration’s approach, I’d stress two things that any political leader hoping to pressure a foreign government on human rights issues should keep in mind.

Obama should have spoken about the rule of law, which the Chinese leaders themselves espouse.

First, it’s important to make clear that, while proud of your country, you don’t think it’s perfect. Second, criticisms are likely to be most effective, as I’ve argued elsewhere in detail, if framed in terms of the foreign government’s failure to live up to its own professed ideals, not yours. I’d give President Obama an “A” on point one, a “C” on point two.

He did well at the Shanghai Town Hall in dispelling the notion, prevalent abroad during the Bush years, that American leaders think themselves infallible. And he appropriately stressed that some battles for human rights on the part of the United States will continue.

But he missed the opportunity to connect his celebration of universal values, such as full gender equality, to the history of the Chinese Revolution and to values China’s current leaders espouse.

Read more… He could have said that, just as he is proud that the first piece of legislation he signed was an equal pay for equal work one, Hu Jintao should take pride in leading a party that, when it took power in 1949, immediately introduced a New Marriage Law that broke with tradition in placing husbands and wives on the same legal footing. Further, President Obama could have stressed that our country owes a debt to crusading lawyers who played crucial roles in combating discrimination in the past, and we now honor those visionary leaders who strengthened and expanded the reach of the rule of law while in power — something that could happen just as easily in China. Bold statements about the importance of the rule of law would be hard for the Chinese government to dismiss as a foreigner imposing his values, since the regime is officially committed to strengthening the legal system. Such oratory would have given a special kind morale boost and recognition to brave Chinese lawyers like Xu Zhiyong, who take great risks to defend poor petitioners and other powerless groups against the government. In light of Mr. Obama’s legal background, it would have been a natural way for him to link general principles to personal convictions — something he often does so well.

Overly Cautious

Tom Malinowski is the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. He has served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and a senior director for foreign policy speechwriting at the National Security Council.

No one can deny that Barack Obama spoke out for human rights while in China, but I wish he had done more. He is the first president to challenge censorship of the Internet while on Chinese soil. And he did something that George Bush, despite his vaunted “freedom agenda,” never did on his three visits to China: he raised Tibet and the Dalai Lama during a joint televised appearance with President Hu Jintao (though urging only dialogue, not an end to repression).

Obama’s timidity gives the Chinese confidence that they can resist the U.S. on other issues.

Yet the Chinese government may still conclude that an America indebted to China will be timid about pressing universal values. President Obama spoke eloquently about the lessons of America’s experience in building a free society, but shied away from relating those lessons to China’s experience. Indeed, his rhetoric was more cautious and hesitant than on his trips to Russia, Egypt and Africa.

To its credit, the White House tried to invite Chinese bloggers who have championed free speech to President Obama’s town hall meeting in Shanghai, but when the Chinese government blocked their participation and refused to televise the event, there was no public protest.

Read more… Conventional wisdom holds that pressing human rights in China helps dissidents, but hurts U.S.-China relations. In fact, no one expected that in one trip, President Obama could significantly reduce Chinese repression. But a more vigorous defense of human rights would have provided moral support for Chinese civil society while conveying to Chinese leaders that America remains a strong and self-assured country, even if it owes them money. The truth is, timidity reinforces the perception in China that America is weakening, and increases Chinese leaders’ confidence that they can resist the United States on other issues. It may seem paradoxical, but standing up for human rights is now as vital to a healthy relationship with China as it is to the cause of political freedom.

Beyond Polite Political Language

Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of N.Y.U. Law School’s U.S.-Asia Law Institute and adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.

My favorite Chinese saying is “everything requires a process” (xuyao yige guocheng). The Chinese and American governments apparently share my enthusiasm, judging from their Joint Statement. It says the two nations are committed to building a “positive, collaborative and comprehensive” relationship and establishes a framework and agenda for gradual progress on many complex issues.

Was any meaningful progress made in the confidential Obama-Hu talks?

Some of these issues, broadly construed, concern one type of human right or other. But “human rights” in the sense of political and civil rights, though included in the Joint Statement, received relatively short shrift.

The most notable reference is a blunt recognition that “the United States and China have differences on the issue of human rights.” Still, the two sides reiterated their obligation to protect human rights consistent with international standards, and made a commitment to address the differences in the next round of official human rights dialogue in Washington D.C. by the end of February 2010.