Academic BDS Comes to China

The Guardian has an interesting article about a scientific journal editor, David Curtis, who stepped down from his post after his attempt to implement a boycott of Chinese academics was rebuffed by his publishers. The direct precipitation of his resignation appears to be a mix of two things: first, that he was prevented from publishing an article he co-authored raising the specter of a China boycott, and second, that he had of his own accord begun implementing a policy of rejecting all submissions by Chinese academics due to "the complicity of the Chinese medical and scientific establishment in human rights abuses against the Uyghurs." (The latter decision was denounced by the journal higher-ups as a violation of policies forbidding national origin discrimination).

It is not clear whether the figures involved in the call to boycott Chinese academics are involved in the BDS campaign against Israel. I can imagine them being sympathetic; I can also imagine them being people who thought BDS against Israel was absurd precisely because we should be starting with more serious violators like China and decided to put their money where their mouth was (a quick google search didn't reveal any particular links between Curtis and BDS, whether favorable or critical).

I have been banging the drum about the likelihood that BDS (or BDS-style tactics) will at some point stop "singling out" Israel and make itself apparent as part of activists' toolkits addressing other countries and controversies. And indeed, this particular iteration seems highly reminiscent of the earliest days of anti-Israel BDS (not only because it is originating in the UK). The flat ban on submissions by Chinese academics is identical to how academic BDS began -- the earliest significant academic BDS "move" was a decision by a British journal editor to demand the resignation of Israeli colleagues from her editorial board because "I can no longer live with the idea of cooperating with Israelis as such." Nowadays the BDS movement has made gestures at moving away from pure nationality-based discrimination in favor of allegedly targeting only "institutions, not individuals"; I suspect if the China BDS movement gains legs it will begin making a similar pivot (though, as with the Israel case, I also suspect that the new standard will often be honored primarily in the breach).

But what does the potential emergence of a China academic BDS movement mean for the future of the Israel academic BDS campaign? The core personnel are going to be different -- partially because different people have different interests, partially because the Israel BDS movement has more than its share of tankies who think the entire Uighur issue is western imperialist claptrap. Nonetheless, there will likely be some overlap, and the fact that BDS is being promoted in other cases will do more to legitimize it as a legitimate option even as there may be disagreements about whether a BDS style campaign is properly applied to this or that case. So in that sense, any successful mainstreaming of the China BDS campaign will likely help bolster the Israel one even if the principal actors are different people.

On the other hand, the development of "BDS" in the China context, precisely because it offers a comparator case and can falsify the "singling out" hypothesis, also is likely to generate new norms which will serve to modulate and regulate the Israel case as well. While Curtis' proposal is drastic -- no submissions from any Chinese academics, period -- it is supremely unlikely, given China's integration into global academia and knowledge-production, that a BDS movement of that form will gain any traction. Far more plausible is the implementation of considerably more narrow and targeted measures -- particular institutions or projects that are inextricably bound up in human rights abuses that directly (and not just by association) taint the specific academic work emanating therefrom. And particular will likely actually be particular -- it will not be tenable to use sweeping notions of complicity or culpability to drag in every single Chinese university or institution (the main mechanic by which "institutions, not individuals" reverts back to "individuals").

This is part of what I've been saying when I suggest that social movements, BDS including, "moderate as they mainstream." The more BDS becomes a general tool of social activism rather than an Israel-only one-off, the more it will adjust itself to adopt standards that actually can be plausibly generalized to a range of cases, and while extirpation of all Israelis from the global community is at least a conceivable social goal, extirpation of all Chinese nationals (or all nationals of all countries whose governments are implicated in significant human rights abuses) is not.

Put differently, to the extent people start thinking seriously about applying "BDS" to the China case in a manner that is plausible and scalable, the equilibrium that will be set will be one that likely will not countenance flat bars on academic participations by persons of a particular nationality, nor "institutional" proscriptions that amount to doing the same thing, but may accept narrowly-tailored measures targeted at specific wrongdoers. And -- insofar as China would be used as a comparator case to justify measures in other states as well (namely, Israel) -- there is a decent chance that these norms will translate over to the Israeli case as well. It won't happen without a fight, and you can be sure that the old-guard will continue to insist on the more fundamentalist version. But I do think that's the most likely trajectory.

You'll Miss It When It's Gone (Iran Deal Edition)

The UN Security Council today declined to extend an arms embargo against Iran, over furious protests by the United States, Israel, and Arab Gulf States. The main opponents of the arms embargo were, naturally, Russia and China. But several European nations -- France, Germany, and the UK -- expressed hesitation, claiming that the United States was no longer in a position to credibly push for sanctions on Iran after it withdrew from the JCPOA (aka "the Iran Deal").

Fancy that. And speaking of the JCPOA, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in its own statement denouncing the UNSC's vote, urged that Security Council consider implementing the JCPOA's "snapback" provisions as an alternative means of blocking Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons program. An interesting idea -- if only a certain country hadn't detonated the JCPOA framework! It's almost like the Iran Deal contained important leverage and hard-won commitments even from countries not otherwise inclined to care about Iranian aggression, and when the United States unilaterally abandoned the deal we lost a ton of international credibility that we can't easily earn back.

Many, many people warned against the reckless decision to back out of the JCPOA, precisely on the grounds that doing so would ruin the ability of the United States to credibly pursue any sort of robust diplomatic containment strategy against Iran going forward. And now we're seeing the real fruits of the Trump administration's decision. Way back when the Iran Deal was initially being debated, I noted that one of the most persuasive arguments I read in its favor was the experts who observed that every time we reject or abandon an "Iran deal", the one we're able to get two or three years later is far worse than the one we left behind. The common cycle is a deal is proposed, conservatives say "how dare you give everything away to the terrorist regime of Iran", we abandon the deal, and then next time around ... we're in an even worse negotiating posture than we were before and what once looked like "giving everything away" now is an unattainable fantasy.

We are, as always, apparently doomed to keep reliving history. Heckuva job, Trumpie.

Ma Vector Roundup

I'm on the job hunt this fall, and "Ma Vector" is my official unofficial callsign (it's a long story).

* * *

Iranian judoka Saeid Mollaei apparently flees to Germany from Japan in an asylum bid. He had been under intense pressure to throw matches in order to avoid facing an Israeli competitor, Sagi Muki, in international tournaments (Muki just became the first Israeli to win a world championship). Mollaei will apparently be eligible to compete in the 2020 Olympics on the "refugee" team.

New York Republicans remove antisemitic video; replace it with antisemitic text.

Contra The Young Turks, and with all due respect to John Delaney, the reason John Delaney "peaked at 2%" starts and ends with "who on earth is John Delaney?"

Several Chinese undergraduate students at Arizona State were denied entry to the United States and deported back to China. This follows on the heels of a Palestinian student at Harvard also being denied entry, reportedly due to political comments by some of his Facebook friends.

Antisemitic beliefs are taking hold in the Evangelical Christian community.

Trump's efforts to gain the support of Jewish voters don't seem to be working -- probably because he doesn't understand what motivates Jewish voters.

Boris Johnson's net approvals as PM are at -6%. Jeremy Corbyn's net approvals are -59%.

Not My President's Day Roundup

Our apartment's water heater is being replaced tomorrow. That means my one true joy in life -- long, languid, hot showers -- will also have to go for the day. It will be terrible.

* * *

China's crackdown on religious liberty threatens the tiny but ancient Kaifeng Jewish community.

One of the few Black mathematicians in American academia recounts the microaggressions and subtle racism which alienated him from his own discipline.

I think the tone of this column is a little off, but the broad point -- that leftist anti-Zionists have no friend more highly placed in Israel than Netanyahu himself -- is on the mark, and it's important that someone like Eric Yoffie is saying it.

Alabama newspaper editor urges the return of the KKK in order lynch Democrats (and insufficiently conservative Republicans). Yes, really.

Apparently, Louisiana has a bad habit of not releasing prisoners after they've finished serving their sentences.

"As a Jew, I’m either furious or eating. Sometimes both."

For all the talk of "creeping Sharia", the fact is that the American Muslim community is actually experiencing something very different: creeping liberalism. For a community that, for much of recent electoral history, at least leaned Republican (especially on social issues), the rapid embrace of feminism, gay equality, and sexual liberation among the younger generation is coming as a bit of a shock to the more conservative old-guard.

Chinese Village of Wukan Revolts

A small fishing village of about 20,000 in southern China has effectively revolted, chasing out its Communist Party leadership and resisting efforts by riot police to reassert control. Tensions originally started when the local Communist Party began selling off their land to developers, and escalated once the local police kidnapped village representatives who had been invited to help mediate the dispute (one later died in police custody).

The village has food and water for 10 days, as well as a pharmacy, but it is effectively being blockaded (including along its harbor). While I wish them the best of luck, I'm dubious this ends well for them. But perhaps some sort of flotilla like thing could be organized to relieve them? Thinking outside the box here.

Video Game Night Roundup

I've been on a bit of a gamer kick recently. Borrowed Mass Effect, beat that the other day. Then I pre-ordered the new Assassin's Creed. Then I bought Mass Effect 2, Fight Night Champion, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I beat Fight Night just an hour ago.

* * *

Intriguing gambit: US goes to the WTO to argue that China's "great internet firewall" represents a restraint on free trade.

Hey remember when groups like the ZOA were aghast at the prospect of American Jews criticizing Israel? They lost that principle real quick.

Interesting bit on WaPo about Herman Cain's racial background.

Don't see this every day: Libertarian blogger asks whether we should abolish the corporate form.

And Back Atcha!

The Chinese Restaurant Association sends thanks to the Jewish people for our Christmas-day patronage. We, in turn, thank the Chinese Restaurant community for being open that day and welcoming us with open arms.

"I'm Here" Roundup

Long story.

* * *

Great post by Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding his experience when his partner got pregnant.

Leon Wieseltier on the pro-Israel community's conflicted feelings regarding the fall of Egyptian autocracy and the rise of a new democratic order: "Jews should not rely on Pharaohs."

Conservative depressed to find out "judicial activism" is a two-way street. "Striking down democratically-enacted legislation" has the key advantage of being measurable. "Decisions that are wrong" is simply a way of muscling your way past the fact that "what the constitution commands" is precisely what's being disputed. (Via).

Cool story about a benefit dinner hosted by New York's Chinese immigrant community for Jews victimized by a Russian pogrom at the turn of the 20th century.

The What is it like being a woman in philosophy blog is harrowing, but worth reading.

Phoebe's got two good posts up on how "anti-Semitism" is and isn't part of our collective discourse -- I feel compelled to note that I really do think they're quite good, as I quarreled with a side-point she made in the comments I left over there.

Distaste for his presidency as a whole notwithstanding, one of the few areas George W. Bush was on the right path was in his views on immigration. He's recently expressed his concern that America is suffering a relapse into "nativism".

Bad All Around

I had some reflexive snark reaction to this story about how the business of producing the oh-so-chic keffiyehs has been completely outsourced to China, but really, it's just demoralizing up and down. American hipsters engaging in uncritical faux-solidarity with Palestinians. American hipsters not actually paying attention to the political or economic consequences of their purchasing decisions (there's a huge surprise). Money redirected from a Palestinian economy that desperately needs it to China. And another local industry integral to Palestinian culture shuts down.

Huntsman Goes to China

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R), who had been carving out a niche for himself as the leader of the "not insane" wing of the GOP, has accepted an appointment by President Obama to become ambassador to China. Huntsman speaks Mandarin fluently and did his Mormon mission to Taiwan.

A Kos blogger says this means Huntsman is throwing away any chance at the 2012 nod. That's probably right, although in different circumstances it could give Hunstman even more credibility as a "country over partisanship" kind of candidate. Unfortunately for him, the body of the GOP considers service to the Obama administration to be apostasy, so I doubt it will work out that way in the end.

UPDATE: As Steve Benen points out, Hunstman will only be 56 in 2016, so that might be the better shot -- assuming, again, that the Republican base steps back from the precipice.

Another Canceled Event

There seems to be something about human rights conferences and South Africa that just doesn't mix. In the wake of South Africa's refusal to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama (almost definitely under Chinese pressure), the organizers of a peace conference meant to coincide with the World Cup have decided to cancel the event. The government said the Dalai Lama's presence would be a distraction from the World Cup, but I can't imagine it would have been more distracting than the torrent of criticism being leveled right now from all corners of the globe.

Maybe the committed anti-imperialists of Malmo, Sweden can shlep down to South Africa and try and get the World Cup canceled too, brave defenders of justice that they are.

(Thanks to Chingona for the tip-off).

You Know Jews -- They're Only After That One Thing

Discussing the flare up over possible National Intelligence Council chair Chas Freeman, M.J. Rosenberg writes something that deserves some parsing:

Now Jonathan Chait of the New Republic is an interesting case. He's liberal on every single issue but Israel (on which he is pure neocon), not only liberal but brilliant. But when it comes to Israel, he just can't get beyond the ethnic pull. Even worse, he does not understand that his ethnic blinders (and that is all they are) have led him to support an approach to Israel that, if it succeeds, will destroy it.

This, of course, is a specific form of a question that gets asked quite frequently: "Why are Jews so liberal on everything else, but so conservative on Israel?" And Rosenberg answers explicitly what many others just leave unspoken: it's ethnocentrism.

There is blindness here, but it's Mr. Rosenberg who has it. Most Jews would reject the premise of his claim. In all but my absolute most conservative moments, I never saw my support of Israel as stemming from anything but liberal values. Israel wasn't an exception, it was normal -- just another liberal position I hold. The beliefs that Mr. Chait has about Israel, as far as he's concerned, flow part and parcel out of his generally progressive ideology. Many other progressives can't understand that this is how many Jews think; they can't fathom that progressivism can lead to an alternate path on Israel than the one they hold.

The latest turn the controversy has taken is with Rosenberg, Matt Yglesias, and Stephen Walt all asserting that the only reason Freeman is facing resistance is that he's said bad things about Israel. Here's Prof. Walt:

What unites this narrow band of critics is only one thing: Freeman has dared to utter some rather mild public criticisms of Israeli policy. That's the litmus test that Chait, Goldberg, Goldfarb, Peretz, Schoenfeld et al want to apply to all public servants: thou shalt not criticize Israeli policy nor question America's "special relationship" with Israel. Never mind that this policy of unconditional support has been bad for the United States and unintentionally harmful to Israel as well. If these pundits and lobbyists had their way, anyone who pointed that fact out would be automatically disqualified from public service.

And here's Mr. Yglesias:

[T]he habit of turning around and acting indignant when people point out that what’s motivating this fight is Freeman’s views on Israel is really pretty silly. When you hear that indicted former AIPAC director Steve Rosen, The New Republic, Commentary, Eli Lake, and Chuck Schumer are spearheading opposition to something you don’t say to yourself “they must be concerned about the human rights situation in China!”

The reason they're pushing back so hard is that, while certainly many of these people are quite concerned with Freeman's views on Israel, they are also claiming that they find Freeman's foreign policy views more generally -- his pro-authoritarian instincts on China, and his ties to Saudi Arabia -- distressing. I find it very unnerving that Walt, Rosenberg, and Yglesias can't even fathom that pro-Israel Jews could have other political commitments that hold them and motivate them (even if only in part) aside from Israel.

Chait's original editorial, for instance, focuses very little on Freeman's views on Israel. In Goldberg's first post, he mentioned that Freeman was "well-known for his hostility toward Israel, but what's more substantively troubling about this report is the obvious inappropriateness of hiring a well-known advocate for the interests of Middle Eastern autocracies to produce national intelligence estimates for the Obama Administration." All of this, we're led to believe, is mere hand-waving. Israel is the only thing that motivates these men. Everything else is a tricksy facade.

Now when we're talking about folks whose professional job is as advocates for Israel (like Mr. Rosen for AIPAC), then perhaps some skepticism is warranted. But the Walt/Yglesias/Rosenberg camp distorts the picture in their favor by only focusing on the Jews (and pro-Israel partisans) who are critical of Freeman, while neglecting to note that pro-Taiwan speakers are concerned, and Chinese human rights advocates are concerned as well. If you ignore everybody in the discussion who doesn't have a history of pro-Israel advocacy (and, of course, you assume pro-Israel advocates care about nothing else in the whole wide world), then it's easy to see a conspiracy. That doesn't make it right.

Finally, going off what I said above about how many Jews view there support of Israel as packed into broader idealistic/progressive views on foreign policy, it makes perfect sense that the concern over human rights is sincere. Chait continues:

Foreign policy idealists tend to believe in the value of supporting democracies versus dictatorships, and opposing genocide, even if this doesn't advance narrow economic or foreign policy interests. Realists disagree, which is fine. But the problem is that some realists not only disagree, but have defined the entire idealist worldview as being about Israel. In fact, foreign policy idealists have spent a lot of time defending, say, Taiwan. Not as much time as defending Israel, but of course Taiwan's citizens aren't actually under military attack from China the way Israel's have been from Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, it's true that a lot of Jews are idealists, and that foreign policy idealism is a good justification for the U.S.-Israel alliance. I'd argue that Jewish history before 1948 has more to do with Jewish belief in an ideology that elevates moral considerations over power politics and rejects the notions that a state can deal with its internal population as it sees fit.

And even if you suppose this entire world view is merely a construct to justify support for Israel, there are arguments to be dealt with. Walt refuses to defend Freeman on his ties to Saudi Arabia and extreme defense of China, thinking he can wave it all away by shouting "Israel-lover!" at the critics in the hopes that this will rally liberals to Freeman's side. The method of Walt's argument is vastly more distrurbing than the substance. Walt is arguing that any Jewish-American who does not roughly share his views on Israel (which, of course, disqualifies the vast majority) is presumptively acting out of dual loyalty, is probably coordinating their actions in secret, and should thus be dismissed out of hand. I think Walt has come to this conclusion on the basis of his foreign policy worldview rather than out of animus against Jewish people. But it's a paranoid analysis whose consequence is to make the debate about Israel much more stupid and mired in attacks on motive.

Put simply, Chait has a track record of supporting Israel, yes, but he also has a track record for supporting human rights and progressive policies worldwide. That history gets subsumed, however, once Israel comes into the discussion. Once Israel becomes a factor, the assumption seems to be that pro-Israel Jews can think of nothing else. That is a deeply unfair -- dare I say vile -- presumption. Walt's attack particularly teetered periliously on the brink of the "dual loyalties" charge, and essentially told his readers "don't trust what these men say -- they are lying to promote their Zionist agenda". It is impossible to have a mature discussion -- indeed, it is impossible to be Jewish (and hold whatever views that Rosenberg and Walt would tag as "neo-con") and be fairly included in the discussion -- when that is the standard we are held to.

Selling Votes

Matt Yglesias presses for DC statehood -- even going so far to demarcate the borders of a new "federal" district which would have the important governmental buildings but no residents (aside from the President himself). The Debatable Land (my blog had the initials longer!), noting that Republicans would never acquiesce to the basic democratic right of enfranchisement if it will lead to more Democrats, offers an alternative: exempting DC entirely from federal income taxes.

It may have some practical benefits, but check me off under the box that says voting rights can't be bought. No deal.

Via Andrew Sullivan, who says that under the latter proposal, DC could become "Hong Kong on the Potomac". I never realized Andrew was such a fan of China's model of governance.

Update: Some folks are really more excited about alternatives to DC statehood, namely, retrocession to Maryland or (worse yet) ceding the territory to Virginia, than is warranted. The retrocession proposal at least makes some sense -- DC was originally carved out of territory belonging to Maryland (and Virginia, but the latter already took its territory back). The Virginia proposal, by contrast, appears solely motivated by the desire to solidify VA as a "blue state" for the foreseeable future. In other words, it's nakedly partisan.

I don't think these folks get it. DC deserves representation in Congress because it has a right to democratic participation. Enhancing the political prospects of the Democratic Party has literally nothing to do with it, and is not a legitimate consideration. Now, as it happens, DC statehood would be very good for Democrats. That's fortunate for them, just as the ultimate borders of Wyoming have been a boon for Republicans. Since in neither case were the borders drawn with an eye towards partisan political advantage, the advantages that accrued are morally neutral.

But it would be an entirely different thing to deliberately redraw the boundaries of a political unit for such an advantage. It's bad enough in Congressional gerrymandering, and I'd like to keep the dragon in its cage, such as it is. How badly do we want to open the door to Texas Tots type thinking? At least the retrocession to Maryland can plausibly claim to be flowing from neutral principles (it helps that the partisan boon for Democrats would be minimal -- though not non-existent -- in that case). The Virginia plan has literally nothing going for it other than partisan considerations.

There's another consideration at work here, that's being nearly entirely ignored: the will of DC voters. Has anyone bothered to ask if they want to be ceded to another political unit? If it became a state, DC would become the only majority-Black state in the nation. Needless to say, shifting it to either Virginia or Maryland would eliminate that distinction. I think DC voters should be in charge of their own destiny, and just as their democratic rights shouldn't be held hostage to economic advantage, neither should they be made pawns of Democratic Party political strategy.

The Other Jackboot Drops

I'm enjoying watching The Olympics, but the way that the television coverage has been such a pro-China love-fest is really sickening to me. There has been virtually no talk about the way in which China has utterly squashed dissent and protests during the games after promising to open up (and the networks have cooperated with China's heavy-handed efforts to put only its best face forward, most notably with the computer-enhanced opening ceremonies). Fortunately, the print media has been considerably better, and today the New York Times has the story of two elderly Chinese women who have been sentenced to "re-education" after their unsuccessful efforts to get a protest permit.

This is after China (a) designated protest locations at isolated, out-of-the-way locations, and (b) refused to approve any of the 77 applications it got for protests. So now we can add (c) arresting people for attempting to file the application and sentencing them to potential hard labor. The Times also documents various other charming anti-protest strategies, such as "disappearing" folks trying to apply, or simply refusing to distribute the permit forms at all.

When I watch sporting competitions, nothing raises my blood pressure than unfair play. From the underage gymnasts to the replacement of China's singer with someone "cuter" to the media-assist on the opening ceremonies to the broken promises of liberalization, there has been a cloud of dishonesty to these entire games. So next time you see the picture of the gorgeous Bird's Nest or the spectacular Beijing skyline, remember that there is an undercurrent to the whole proceedings, and it's called authoritarianism.

The Politics of The Olympics

Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber has an interesting post up about the growing political saliency of the Olympic Games, as demonstrated by the increased murmurings that Western leaders ought to boycott -- at the least -- the opening ceremonies of the upcoming Beijing Olympics.

Of course, it's not as if the Olympics were previously insulated from political machinations, as the dueling boycotts of the 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles Games demonstrated. But, Farrell argues, the dynamic of where the pressure is coming from has changed significantly:

The dynamic driving the Beijing Olympics seems to me to be rather different; what we are seeing is that the politics of boycott is being driven by mass-publics, and most recently by protestors, rather than by political leaders. In the absence of the public unrest that has culminated in the recent protests in Paris, I doubt very much that Western political leaders would be muttering about not showing at the opening ceremonies – the geopolitical stakes of market access etc are likely more important to them than the fate of Tibetans. But given the widespread public reaction in the West, even leaders like Gordon Brown, who obviously want very much to attend, are having to insulate themselves from public pressures by taking other actions liable to annoy China (such as meeting with the Dalai Lama). In short, I think we are seeing how public opinion and organized cross-national opposition can create significant constraints on the ability of leaders to respond to what they see as the geostrategic necessity of keeping China happy. This is, as best as I am aware, a new phase in the development of the Olympics.

In other words, the Olympics offer a new avenue for grass-roots public anger to manifest itself in actual pressure on global leaders. This is because the Olympics are a high profile example of international recognition and engagement, and one that (between the presence of hordes of news media, athletes with personal agendas that don't map on to diplomatic niceties, and even the easily protested torch-run) offers a nearly unparalleled opportunity for media-friendly protests.

On the actual merits of boycotting the opening ceremonies itself, see Steve Clemons versus Daniel Drezner.

E-Revolution

Popular outrage over auxilary police beating to death a citizen journalist who was taking pictures of them beating yet other Chinese citizens appears to have motivated the Chinese government to action. The story has raced around Chinese blogs and news sites, and led to at least one official being fired and dozens more under investigation.

This is not the first article I've read along these lines regarding events in China, and it appears that they do at least exert some impact on real-life policy. It seems that the Chinese citizenry is beginning to flex some real muscle in terms of liberalizing their country. It's slow and unstable, and thus far it hasn't put true democracy on the table, but it's real.

The FRC Loves Judicial Review!

In China, anyway, where the high court has announced it will hear a case regarding forced abortion.

To be sure, the case they cite is rather appalling. A women who got pregnant prior to marriage was literally forced to have an abortion. Apparently, family planning officials "escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive."

Yes, forcing women to make reproductive decisions against their will infuriates me too. It's a good thing the Chinese courts appear willing to intervene against the "law of the land" to stop it. Remember, Roe Rage isn't about legal theory, it's about results.

Quote of the (Yester)day

As so often is the case, my quote of the day comes from quite some time ago. This one comes from a Chinese Newspaper (one year prior to the communist takeover) commenting on the application of segregationist law in Alabama:

We cannot help having some impressions of the United States which actually already leads half the world and which would like to continue to lead it. If the United States merely wants to 'dominate' the world, the atomic bomb and the U.S. dollar will be sufficient to achieve this purpose. However, the world cannot be 'dominated' for a long period of time. If the United States wants to 'lead' the world, it must have a kind of moral superiority in addition to military superiority.

Ta Kung Pao (Shanghai), May 1948 (quoted in Mary Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton UP 2000), 32).

Dudziak's book, incidentally, is quite good and a must-read for anyone who wants an accessible history for the way the moral atrocities of Jim Crow impacted America's crucial Cold War image as a beacon of democracy and hope.

Red Glass

Reuters has an article up on the inability of women to penetrate the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party. Mao Zedong was, publicly at least, supportive of women's equality, but apparently the message never broke through to the Chinese communist culture. Sixty years after the revolution, women are still only 20% of the Chinese parliament.

Hey! I know another country that has only 20% female representation in its parliament!

It's nice to know that we're keeping up with the Jones on women's rights. Or keeping down, as the case may be.