- Accuracy in Media - https://www.aim.org -

Clinton’s Hollow Human Rights Rhetoric

The day after President Clinton gave a speech at Beijing University, ABC Radio news led with a report saying he had emphasized the issue of human rights. ABC even quoted a Chinese American as saying she was proud of her president. On CNN, anchor Natalie Allen said Clinton had spoken “frankly” and had confronted the Communists.

This was absolutely ridiculous. The most glaring omission in Clinton?s speech was his failure to mention government-sanctioned infanticide, forced abortion and sterilization. Yet this policy had been highlighted about a week before Clinton left for China. A House subcommittee on human rights had held hearings and the ABC News Nightline program had aired a report on the topic. ABC interviewed a former Chinese official who had run the government?s brutal one-child per family policy. She told a dramatic story about how one Chinese girl, who was about to give birth, was rounded up by Chinese authorities and forced to undergo an abortion. Her baby was injected with a poison into its head to kill it.

Clinton never mentioned any of that. Instead, his performance included praise for the Communist bosses in Bejing having brought the “liberty” of “economic security” to many Chinese people. Clinton said “economic security” was “an essential element of freedom” because it “is recognized in the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”

However, no such “right” is found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Economic security is one of those so-called “rights” which matters to socialist or communist governments which want to plan the economy and control peoples? lives and property. The former Soviet regime also claimed that it had provided “economic security” to the people.

Clinton?s reference to the Chinese authorities giving their people “economic security” was a form of pandering. Clinton was so desperate to praise the rulers in Beijing that he decided to use a U.N. treaty to sanction their odious behavior. Indeed, a careful reading of his speech shows that he devoted more time and attention to U.N. treaties than the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Rather than emphasize the unique nature of America?s founding documents and the recognition that human rights come from God, Clinton said that certain rights were “universal” and “enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.” One treaty Clinton did not mention was the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which is supposed to guarantee women?s rights. China has signed the treaty and claims to be in compliance. But its one-child per family policy proves that is a big lie.

In a news analysis piece, New York Times reporter Erik Eckholm said the Chinese government had a lot of “trust” in President Clinton and view him as a “great statesman.” Eckholm said this was because Clinton was pursuing “long-term interests” with China. Another plausible explanation is that Clinton is paying the Chinese back for the financial support they provided to his re-election campaign. By not telling the American people what Clinton really said about human rights, many in our media obscured the real service he has rendered to his paymasters.