Thy poverty, not thy will

SHANGHAI -- Sometimes courageous moral stances are cheap.\nFor example, I will never buy a Humvee. They're wasteful, polluting, unsafe vehicles, and therefore I am firmly morally opposed to purchasing them.\nIt's easy for me to follow my convictions. After all, I'm hardly making enough money to even consider buying an SUV.\nChina's tiff this week with the United States over American criticisms of Beijing's record on human rights is a lot like my moral courage on the SUV issue. \nOfficially, Beijing is upset because the United States is meddling in China's internal affairs. Wednesday's Shanghai Daily quoted a senior Foreign Ministry official saying China firmly opposes any interference from any country, including the U.S. government's plans to introduce a resolution in the United Nations stating China's human rights situation has deteriorated in the past year.\nI can understand this. The United States hardly takes criticism from other countries well; is it so shocking other countries resent Washington's holier-than-thou attitude?\nAlthough China can fairly dispute the United States' claims that the country is "backsliding" on human rights, Beijing goes too far in saying it is committed to a policy of noninterference, and that this, in turn, gives it the moral high ground in international relations.\nIn a document titled "China's Independent Foreign Policy of Peace" on the English-language Web site of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the government of China declares "China believes that all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community ... (They should not) interfere in others' internal affairs under any pretext. China never imposes its social system and ideology on others, nor allows other countries to impose theirs on it."\nThis is a common Chinese establishment view. Editorials and statements by Chinese officials echo this sentiment at nearly every opportunity. A professor of mine here, an expert on Sino-American relations, used almost the same words last week to explain why China did not intervene to save the lives of Chinese nationals threatened by ethnic violence in Indonesia several years ago. \nIn many ways, these are admirable thoughts. Who wouldn't prefer to settle international disputes by diplomacy rather than artillery? Yet it's difficult to believe the officials of People's Republic of China, a major military and economic power, have become advocates of a Gandhi-like policy of nonviolence. \nMore likely, China's leaders realize claiming to follow a policy of noninterference is the only option available to them in a world where China is not yet powerful enough to challenge the United States directly. By basing their foreign policy on ostensibly noble principles, China can achieve some measure of influence in Western capitals by seeming to be a little more virtuous than the United States and its pre-emptive wars and frequent international interventions. (This pose plays especially well in Western Europe.)\nOf course, the ideals aren't that noble: Noninterference in the official Chinese definition means NATO was without any justification for stopping the genocide of the Kosovars in the former Yugoslavia. Nor is China entirely wedded to its ideals in practice: Beijing can only claim it refuses to intervene in other countries by defining Tibet and Taiwan to be parts of China -- a definition the people actually living in those areas haven't accepted.\nMoreover, it's almost certain as China grows wealthier and continues to modernize its military, the pressures of popular opinion will force the government to exert its power more and more frequently. Nationalism is a strong and growing force here and nationalists, as a rule, do not believe in noninterference.\nIn the meantime, China's spokespeople will speak of its moral commitment to international equality. For a government that can't afford sin, virtue is cheap.