When NR Supports Communism …
Posted on July 13th, 2009
by Freddy Gray |
|
Under what circumstances do hawkish freedom-lovers support Communism, state-enforced abortion, and the suppression of liberty? When the victims can be portrayed as Muslim terrorists, of course.
Last Monday, National Review’s legal affairs writer Andy McCarthy threw some fairly dense sarcasm at those who expressed sympathy toward the rioting Uighurs in China. “Hard to Believe the Lovable Uighurs Could Be Involved in Terrorism,” he blogged, “even though the ones we were holding at Gitmo were trained in al-Qaeda-affiliated camps.”
“…The Wall Street Journal (as flagged in the NRO web briefing) reports on rioting in China by Uighur “students” that has left scores dead and hundreds wounded. The “students,” described elsewhere in the story as from a “predominantly Muslim ethnic group[, which has] long chafed at restrictions on their civil liberties and religious practices imposed by a Chinese government fearful of political dissent,” expressed their dissent by torching cars and buses, as well as — according to accounts of some witnesses to state-controlled media — rampaging “with big knives stabbing people” on the street.
No reason for non-Muslims in Bermuda, Palau, or the United States to worry, though. The lovable Uighurs are merely trying to address “economic and social discrimination.” Once they get social justice, I’m sure they’ll stop.
Perhaps it’s unfair to suggest that McCarthy is endorsing communist tyranny, but his implication is pretty clear: the Uighurs are terrorists, therefore their protests must be stopped at any cost, and there’s no point being a bleeding-hearted lib about it.
At Harper’s Scott Horton fires back:
Of course, the Uighurs are Muslims. And that makes them into terrorists in the minds of the National Review legal affairs writer. Having taken meals with them and worked with them for two decades, I see things differently. They are proud of their Islamic heritage, and resentful of the heavy hand of the atheist Communist state. The changes in China since the early eighties have opened economic opportunities for the Han Chinese. But not for national minorities like the Uighurs. They don’t know much about America, but what they hear makes them jealous. They most assuredly are not America’s enemies, much as Andy McCarthy wants to make them into just that.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Maybe the problem is that trouble in China = trouble in the treasury market. I’m sure there are lots of different people who don’t want the boat rocked.
I don’t support the Uighurs either, if by “support” is meant even a modicum of sympathy. In media reports I’ve read they’ve cut heads off, set up roadblocks to check for non-Uighur drivers to beat up, and set fire to buildings with non-Uighurs in them.
“Ugh”-hur is more like it. There are no good sides.
This is really just par for the course. They embraced the Iraqi CP and the People’s Mujaheddin to spread democracy in the Middle East, in the 2004 debates Bush protested with such moral outrage that Kerry did not count the barely reconstructed Stalinist then-President of Poland as an ally who was with us in Iraq. And let’s not forget it was Russia, not China, that the neocons were constantly preening about as the new totalitarian menace.
China could hardly be called communist at this stage. If anything they are coming around to looking like a nice brand of national socialism. I think China is doing the right thing. Freedom isn’t just about individual freedom or religious freedom, but also the freedom to establish the kind of society you want to live in. In China’s view, most organized religions are essentially backward cults, and China doesn’t want to be associated with any of that nonsense when there are things to be accomplished and technological advancements to be made. There are plenty of places where these people can practice their religion freely.
Whatever happened to non-interference in the domestic affairs of other nations? Are you advocating we make statements siding with the Uighur protesters against China? You of course wouldn’t make such statements on behalf of oppressed people in Iran, whose government executes homosexuals and conveniently makes dissenters “disappear.”
And since when does supporting one decision of the Chinese government equate to supporting “state enforced abortion” and everything else on the menu. By that logic if I think Obama was right not to get involved in the Iranian affair, then I must also be supporting nationalized health care, cap and trade, affirmative action… the whole shebang.
And just for the record I’m not really a big fan of Andy McCarthy. He’s obsessed with terrorism and foreign wars and still exudes the “patriotic act” mentality of a bygone era.
It is possible for a paleo to avoid expressing sympathy for the Chinese communist regime and also oppose the sedition of the Uighurs. Assuming that the Uighurs attain their objective of another Muslim state, what would this achieve? Yet another burden on the obligations of the IMF, world bank, and the pervasive humanitarian efforts whose duty it is to bring Uighurs into parity with the developed nations–all this in the midst of economic degringolade. Although Harper hints that the Uighurs are zealous for economic opportunity, it is unlikely that Xinjiang will effloresce into anything other than Kosovo. They may not be a nation of terrorists but their agitations could amount to such in troublous times. Paleos need not fall into McCarthy’s trap but ought not be destitute of all sense of threat that Muslims pose with their peculiar leftism.
Richard, you ask: “Are you advocating we make statements siding with the Uighur protesters against China?” Nope - though it depends, I suppose, on the “we”. I am not saying Western governments should intervene or issue official warnings to Beijing in defence the Uighurs. Absolutely not. I just don’t think they should all be lumped in the same mental box as al-Qaeda.