Over the last few years, many human rights activists have criticized U.S. foreign relations with respect to Cuba and China. Both Cuba and China are communist countries and the U.N. has condemned both countries for violating human rights.(1) To compare the violations that China and Cuba have committed, Reed Brody, a lawyer of the UN International Commission of Jurists, even went so far as to say that ñThe violations of which Cuba is accused are little fish compared with [ChinaÍs violations].î However, China enjoys our Most Favored Nation trading privileges while Cuba suffers a trade embargo. Some liberal politicians and human rights activists denounce the U.S. for maintaining this double-standard. Is our U.S. foreign policy hypocritical with respect to China and Cuba? I claim that Washington is being hypocritical in its foreign policy with regard to China and Cuba, although it is understandable from both a liberal and realist perspective why it is in the U.S.Ís best interest to maintain its present foreign policy.

There is no doubt that Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator, commits outrageous human rights violations. For the past six years, the Government of Fidel Castro has been on the agenda of the UNÍs Human Rights Commission. In 1995, 1,500 Cubans wrote to the U.N. Commission of Human Rights to tell their stories of rape, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, torture, and sometimes execution. Today, roughly 10,000 political prisoners continue to be held ¿ and those who refuse ñpolitical rehabilitationî are brutally tortured. For the past 30 years, the U.S. has maintained a trade embargo on Cuba because the US wants to put pressure on Fidel Castro to end his human rights transgressions.

Stories of human rights violations are starting to pour out of China also. Since former political prisoner Harry Wu has been exiled from China to the U.S., he has been campaigning globally to inform about ChinaÍs abuses. Also, in June 1989, foreign cameras caught the massacre at Tiananmen Square and international criticism soared. The international community may never erase the image of tanks rolling toward unarmed young people and ordinary citizens protesting injustice. In March 1995, the U.S. and other Western governments succeeded in having a resolution that criticized China brought before the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but the resolution lost by a narrow vote of 21 to 20.

Not only is the U.N. censuring China for committing domestic human rights violations, but Amnesty International is also condemning China for its ñpersistent human rights violations in Tibet.î Tibetans have been arrested, detained without trial, and tortured for expressing their political or religious beliefs. The Amnesty reports say that although Beijing has signed and ratified the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ñjuveniles, like adults, have been subjected to beatings, electric shocks, solitary confinement and deprivation of sleep, food or drink as punishment.î

However, even in light of all these international allegations, currently China has Most Favored Nation trading privileges, which permit the Chinese to pay a lower tariff on their products imported to the United States for sale. Thus, ChinaÍs concern for international approval is low ¿ if China is benefiting from trade and economic policies, China is not going to feel pressure to recognize international disapproval. In 1993, Clinton decided to ñdelinkî the issue of human rights from the annual extension of preferential trade treatment. The U.S. could put economic pressure on China through trade sanctions to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, we donÍt. Why donÍt we?

Unlike Cuba, China has the potential to become an invaluable market for U.S. companies. Failure to get into the market is seen as tantamount to surrender to Japanese, Taiwanese, and European business interests. Cuba, on the other hand, has nothing to offer with little sources of capital to reach for.
Also, from an ideological standpoint, Cuba is run by a dictator, whereas China is run by the Communist Party, which supposedly practices democratic centralism. Liberals would say that China has the potential to become more democratic, especially now that the government has opened up the Chinese markets to the world, and they are supporting more a more capitalist economy. Cuba, on the other hand, has no chance of becoming a more democratic government unless Castro is ousted.

Liberals, and Clinton, preach that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, and ultimately, democracy will lead to an end of human rights violations. As the Chinese government is disbanding its old communist policies and opting for more capitalistic ones, the private sector is growing stronger. As the private sector grows stronger, individuals have more of a voice and they will push for more rights via a democracy. And, liberals argue, that when a democratic system replaces an authoritarian system, and individuals have a voice in the system, human rights will become a focal point.

However, in the meantime, there is not much evidence that U.S. commercial engagement with China has resulted in significantly better treatment for Chinese dissidents. When the U.S. continues to preach that they will divorce the human rights dialogue from the trade, the Chinese government will continue to bring more political protesters to trial, often sentencing them to severe punishments -- in fact, many oversees Chinese are convinced that the Chinese leaders are testing the US government to see how far they can go. Moreover, American businesses have not really been reaping from the benefits of trading with China -- American exports to China have risen only slowly, even though the trade deficit has exploded. Currently, the US trade deficit with China is $117 billion.

Another important reason why the U.S. has a trade embargo against Cuba and not China is because Cuban-Americans have a strong, powerful lobbying group that supports the trade embargo, whereas Chinese Americans are not that united and are not pushing a trade embargo. Liberals would say that the U.S. government is representing its individuals, and in this case the individuals are the Cuban-Americans. One of ClintonÍs advisors is quoted in the New York Times, ñThere are no votes riding on how we deal with ƒ China. Castro is still political dynamite.î In fact, many Chinese Americans support U.S. investment and interest in China because it is in their personal best interest. As Chinese-Americans, they have a cultural understanding of Chinese business, not to mention, they can speak and read Chinese, and therefore they can be invaluable resources for American companies who are looking to invest in China.

All in all, the U.S. is not doing all it could be doing to end human rights violations in China. In fact, instead of punishing China for not respecting the U.N.Ís Declaration of Human Rights, we reward China with Most Favored Nation status. In our relationship with Cuba, we are exerting all of our power on a weak government in the form of a trade embargo and disapproval ¿ Clinton refuses to even meet with Castro because he refuses to give him the status and respectability that would come from meeting with the President of the United States. Because the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union no longer supports Fidel Castro, he is starting to lose all of his international power. Thus, Clinton officials say that his days are numbered. The U.S. could be more demanding with respect to China, however the U.S. is afraid to alienate Beijing. From a realist viewpoint, the U.S. is acting in its best national interest. China is an up-and-coming nation, and we are one of its primary allies. As long as we keep good relations with China, we have less to fear and more to gain. Cuba is a relatively insignificant military and economic force with which the U.S. is not concerned. From a liberal viewpoint, the U.S. is representing its Cuban-American citizens by sanctioning the trade embargo, and its representing its Chinese-American citizens by encouraging free trade and capitalism in China. Hopefully, however, now that Clinton is assured a second term in office, he will be less concerned with pressure from business, and will put more pressure on China to end its human rights violations. The U.S. is strong enough to stand up to China, and we should stand up to China.

(1) Human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: slavery is a strict violation of human rights. Also, one should have the right to privacy; the right to travel from oneÍs country and return; protection against injudicious arrest; the right to a unbiased trial; the right to own property; the right to an education; the right to leisure; and the right to an adequate standard of living. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the following freedoms as rights: the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the freedom of opinion, and expression; and the freedom of peaceful assembly, and association.