T
he passage of a repressive
law by China has showcased
their growing international
influence and the weakening of the
United States on the world stage. On
June 30, China’s government passed
a highly repressive national secu-
rity law aimed at cracking down on
anti-government sentiment in Hong
Kong. This law follows a year of mas-
sive anti-government demonstra-
tions against the growing control
that mainland China is exerting over
Hong Kong, which is supposed to be
semi-autonomous.
The new Chinese security law
comes with harsh penalties including
possible life in prison for grave dam-
age of government buildings and
terrorism charges for anyone who
sabotages transport and causes
significant damage to property.
Within days of the law going into
effect, pro-democracy books were
being pulled off the shelves and a
man was arrested for having a pro-
independence flag.
The law also allows for residents of
Hong Kong to be extradited to main-
land China in certain cases, where
they would face a secretive and non-
impartial legal system. This will
occur if it is deemed a “national secu-
rity case” or a complex case — these
broad definitions will likely allow
the Chinese government to prosecute
anti-government activists through
sham trials in mainland China. This
directly contrasts the current legal
system in Hong Kong, which ensures
a fair and transparent trial.
Following the passage of this law,
there was a vote at the United Nations
Human Rights Council to condemn
this law. The list of which countries
voted not to condemn China was a
disturbing reminder of the growing
influence of China, especially in Asia
and Africa. China has used its wealth
to invest in developing nations. How-
ever, this investment does not come
without strings. Over 40 of the coun-
tries that voted not to condemn the
law have also signed onto China’s
Belt and Road Infrastructure proj-
ect, in which China lends money to
countries to build roads and ship-
ping infrastructure with the hopes of
creating interconnected worldwide
trade routes for Chinese use.
China is known to lend money to
developing countries, especially in
Africa. In 2018, it was reported that
20 percent of African governments’
external debt was owed to China.
Many of these nations have been
unable to repay their debts, especial-
ly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This has led to fears that counties
may feel more and more indebted to
China and will be forced to support
the country’s egregious policies.
The growing international power
of China, especially in Africa, has
also been aided by the U.S.’s steady
withdrawal from the international
stage. Over the past few years, the
Trump administration has promoted
isolationist policies under the guise
of America first. These policies range
from slashing the United Nations
budget to withdrawing from the
Paris climate accord and instituting
tariffs on our allies, including Can-
ada, Japan and the European Union.
The Trump administration has
also refused to be a leader at the Unit-
ed Nations. The U.S. is not a member
of the UN Human Rights Council,
which was the body that voted on the
resolution to condemn China. The
U.S., under orders from the Trump
administration,
withdrew
from
the council after a disagreement
about which other countries were
allowed to join the council. While I
admit that is absurd that countries
such as Saudi Arabia are on this
council, that does not mean that the
U.S. should have withdrawn. It is
always better to have a seat at the
table and use the power and influ-
ence of the U.S. to help advocate for
democratic values.
The move towards isolation-
ism by the Trump administration
has helped to create a vacuum that
countries such as China and Rus-
sia are more than happy to fill.
The growing sphere of influence
of China and Russia in three devel-
oping countries is something that
should concern all of us.
The events of the past few months
have put issues of justice, freedom
and equality at the forefront of
our national conversation. As we
seek to emphasize these values,
we must remember to look beyond
our borders. Although these issues
are oceans away from campus, we
cannot turn a blind eye. The bla-
tant suppression of free speech and
expression in Hong Kong is unac-
ceptable and must be opposed at
all costs. We must also recognize
the plight of countries that are los-
ing their autonomy to China. As we
look to 2020, we must support can-
didates who understand the impor-
tance of international relations and
recognize the power of the U.S. to
use our influence to promote the
values of freedom and democracy
around the world.
5
Thursday, July 9, 2020
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
5
China’s expanding sphere of influence
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMNIST
Isabelle Schindler can be reached at
ischind@umich.edu.
TUHIN CHAKRABORTY | COLUMNIST
L
ate this past June, four years
after defending its namesake
in spite of backlash from
student activists, the Princeton Uni-
versity School of Trustees voted to
remove former U.S. President Wood-
row Wilson’s name from its Public
Policy school. The decision-makers
cited this “searing moment in Ameri-
can History” (i.e. the fallout from the
George Floyd shooting) as a wakeup
call to choose a better role model for
Princeton students. While statues and
other monuments of racist and con-
troversial American historical figures
have been being removed for months
now, this is one of the first times
a United States president has had
their memorialization eliminated.
Wilson is considered to be a well-
regarded president among historians.
In 2017, historians participating in
C-SPAN’s presidential survey ranked
him the 11th best president in U.S. his-
tory (President Barack Obama was
12th). His accomplishments include:
leading the U.S. to victory in WWI;
agreeing to a suffrage amendment
that led to Congress passing the 19th
amendment granting women the
right to vote; and playing a key role in
establishing the League of Nations,
one of the first intergovernmental
organizations in the world. However,
Wilson also, among other misdeeds,
spoke “approvingly” of the KKK,
further segregated the federal gov-
ernment and called D.W. Griffith’s
incredibly racist film “The Birth of a
Nation” “terribly true.” So was he also
an unapologetic and dedicated racist?
Quite certainly, but that does not nec-
essarily mean that we can’t honor him
for his positive contributions to soci-
ety. When we consider the legacies
of past Americans, we must first ask
ourselves these two questions: Why
are these people famous and does
their claim to fame merit recognition
despite their flaws?
Some of the historical figures at the
forefront of the current statues and
monuments debate are Confederate
generals and political figures, such as
Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis,
whose statues are scattered through-
out this country, particularly in the
South. Regarding the first question,
these people are famous for betraying
their country and fighting for a slave-
owning rebel regime. Therefore the
second question is moot, as their claim
to fame is extremely undesirable in the
first place. Every single one of these stat-
ues, military bases and other memori-
als to the Confederacy need to be taken
down and/or replaced immediately as
their values represent non-patriotic
rhetoric and anti-Black agendas.
However, remaining on the topic
of the Civil War, not everyone during
this time has such a clear-cut legacy.
A statue of Union General and 18th
U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant was
recently taken down by protestors in
Golden Gate Park in California. The
protesters did so because Grant had
owned a slave named William Jones.
While this is true, Grant owned Jones
only because he married into a family
that owned slaves, and he emancipated
Jones in 1859, the same year Jones may
have been given to him by his wife’s
family. Additionally, Grant is famous
for leading the Union Army to victory
in the Civil War, which allowed for the
last slaves to be freed on July 19, which
is now celebrated as Juneteenth. It is
pretty safe to say that facilitating the
widespread emancipation of millions
of slaves greatly outweighs owning a
single slave for less than a year before
freeing him without any conditions.
Back to Wilson, saying his accom-
plishments are formidable would be an
understatement. His Fourteen Points,
promulgated in a speech before Con-
gress that outlined his vision for ending
WWI, were some of the most impor-
tant declarations in favor of free trade,
national autonomy for Poland, Belgium
and many other nations, as well as dip-
lomatic developments toward world
peace such as the League of Nations.
While the U.S. did not actually join the
League of Nations, it is a widely accept-
ed fact that the League’s principle of
international political cooperation (a
principle strongly advocated for by
Wilson at Versailles) was a major inspi-
ration behind the charter of today’s
United Nations, of which the U.S. is an
active member. Wilson not only voiced
support for the 19th Amendment, but
also fought tooth-and-nail for women’s
suffrage for months in Congress while
other legislators were convinced that
allowing women to vote would harm
their own electoral prospects. Toward
the end of his term, Congress finally
passed the 19th Amendment.
While he used to be opposed to
female suffrage, Wilson quickly
changed his views after recognizing
women’s contributions to the WWI
war effort and stated women abso-
lutely deserve to vote because they
are capable of “service and sacrifice
of every kind” for their country. Fur-
thermore, one should consider this:
Abraham Lincoln was once against
abolitionism,
but,
like
Wilson,
switched sides to a more progressive
stance and freed the slaves with the
Emancipation Proclamation. If that
helped make him one of the great-
est presidents of all time, why can’t
Wilson be given just as much credit
for empowering women with voting
rights?
Woodrow Wilson has an extremely
checkered and controversial legacy.
After the recent decision, Princ-
eton President Christopher Eisgruber
claimed that Wilson’s racism “disqual-
ifies” him from being a “role model”
for Princeton students. However,
it is not right to take his name away
from a university solely because
he was a bad role model in terms of
race, because this ignores other areas
where he can definitely be consid-
ered a role model, namely interna-
tional relations and women’s rights.
Wilson’s solid contributions to public
policy in those aforementioned areas
build a strong case for his name to be
on the public policy school of the uni-
versity where he was once president.
It is also worth noting that the de
jure segregation that Wilson helped
implement is long gone due to legisla-
tion such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
but the UN and female suffrage still
remain among the pillars of democ-
racy and diplomacy today. Ameri-
cans need to fully recognize Wilson’s
failures and injustices but also cele-
brate how he helped propel America
into a more progressive future.
As previously stated, Wilson’s
demise as the name for Princeton’s
Public Policy School is simply one issue
among many right now. Statues of
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson
and other giants of American history
are also being defaced and torn down.
However, in the words of Eugene Rob-
inson, acclaimed African-American
Washington Post columnist, “there is
an obvious difference between George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson,
who founded our union, and, say, Jeffer-
son Davis and Stonewall Jackson, who
tried to destroy it.”
When we look at people like
Presidents Jefferson, Washington
and Wilson, we should absolutely
acknowledge that these people were
racist and Washington and Jeffer-
son were slave owners who played a
large role in perpetuating the racially
oppressive conditions that haunt
Black Americans to this day. How-
ever, this should “temper our admi-
ration of them, not erase it entirely.”
These people may have passed down
to us a country plagued by slavery, Jim
Crow and other problems, but they
also created and protected the “con-
stitutional tools” that have allowed
later Americans to make our country
a better place for everyone to live. For
that, they deserve to be recognized.
Which of our nation’s statues deserve to stay?
Tuhin Chakraborty can be reached
at tchakra@umich.edu.
OPINION