Freeman's exit
Help me out here. Shouldn’t it at least be a matter of some concern that a man hired by the U. S. government to offer counsel on Middle Eastern affairs runs an institution, the Middle East Policy Council, which has been largely funded by one of the governments he would be responsible for advising about? Yet to listen to the people James Fallows quotes here there is simply no possible justification for having any doubts about Chas Freeman whatsoever.
A lot of knowledgeable people across the political spectrum supported Freeman vigorously, which counts for a good deal to me. But I have not been able to find answers from Freeman or his supporters to two questions:
1) Freeman says that he has “never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service”; but he has also acknowledged then-Crown Prince Abdullah’s “generosity” in funding his Council. There are not necessarily inconsistent statements, but I haven't seen an explanation from Freeman or his supporters of the distinction. Is is just that everyone in Washington is so financially entangled with foreign governments that this is a non-issue for them? It’s not a non-issue for me.
2) Freeman and his supporters insist that in his now-notorious comments about the Tiennanmen Square crackdown that he was simply describing the Chinese government’s views, not offering his own. But the text clearly shows that after he described the government position, he went on to give his own: “For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be.” Italics mine, because the words “for myself” are rather straightforward, aren't they?
I’m not saying that Freeman didn't, on the merits of his knowledge and insight, deserve the job he was offered. But he needed to answer, clearly and unambiguously, the questions I’ve just asked. Maybe he has and I haven't seen it. All I see, in the resignation message quoted above, is the angry shouting of Israel Lobby! Israel Lobby! And that’s not good enough.
While I certainly accept that you have principled objections to his nomination, I think your dimissal of the Israel lobby as a convenient out for Freeman is just awful. Sort of like being mad that he didn’t also turn his head and cough.
— Sam · Mar 11, 02:51 PM · #
I think you are being naive about how things work in washington.
THe crazy thing is that the president can’t hire whatever person he wants to advise him. I absolutely can see the value of congressional advise and consent for judges, and maybe for cabinet officials, but below cabinet level? It makes no sense at all.
— cw · Mar 11, 03:02 PM · #
Oh, please. You know, and I know, and the whole world knows this was an exercise in ideological purification. The BIG problem is that he is off the AIPAC reservation on Israel and considered too close to the Saudis. All rest is just the gotcha part of the game.
— bob · Mar 11, 03:45 PM · #
1) We seem to have gone crazy on the issue of minute financial conflicts of interest. The issue really ought not to be whether some nickels made their way from Arab countries into Freeman’s pocket via his chairmanship of the Middle East Policy Council. The issue should be whether his views on Middle East policy issues are reasonable ones. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but they can be examined on their own merits.
2) I think the clear import of Freeman’s comments is that the Chinese government should not have let the situation get to this point, not that its subsequent actions were reasonable. That is not an uncommon view among China watchers. Henry Kissinger remarked after Tiananmen: “No government in the world would have tolerated having the main square of its capital occupied for eight weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators who blocked the authorities from approaching the area in front of the main government building. In China a demonstration of impotence in the capital would unleash the lurking regionalism and warlordism in the provinces. A crackdown was therefore inevitable.” (WP, 8/1/89.) You certainly can disagree with that position — I tend to think it is unduly sympathetic to the Chinese government — but I don’t see any of Freeman’s critics suggesting that Kissinger should be persona non grata
— alkali · Mar 11, 04:25 PM · #
There are some reasons to question whether Freeman was an appropriate choice. But what matters here is those are not the reasons he actually had to withdraw.
— Freddie · Mar 11, 04:32 PM · #
I agree. We shouldn’t let people with financial ties to Saudi Arabia have seats in government. Can we go back in time and remove Bush from office now? I think the same line of reasoning would apply….
— E.D. Kain · Mar 11, 04:49 PM · #
Not really my thing but perhaps one way of thinking about it is that would all these things (the connections with the Saudis and the views on China) have become so important if it wasn’t for his views on Israel? But then again, I don’t have any views either way. Politics is politics — if one doesn’t want someone to take a certain office, one goes after him with all the weapons that one can get.
— scritic · Mar 11, 04:50 PM · #
“ there is simply no possible justification for having any doubts about Chas Freeman whatsoever”
hyperbolic much? None of Fallows’ quotees write or even imply any such thing.
— sidereal · Mar 11, 06:40 PM · #
The Saudis pay a lot of Washington insiders to work for their interests. In contrast, a lot of Washington insiders work for Israel’s interests for free. I’m not sure which one I should worry about more.
— Steve Sailer · Mar 11, 11:51 PM · #
Given that China will be financing our new spending programs, we aren’t going to have a lot of leverage with that country on human rights issues. But it’s a bit much to preemptively surrender on an issue like Tiananmen, which is what a nomination like Freeman’s would have done.
— The Reticulator · Mar 12, 06:39 AM · #