It was twenty years ago. While baby-boomers, then in their 40s, were busy working and paying off college tuition bills for their children, university students amassed in a central square in Beijing and protested for democracy and reform. A few creative young people in the crowd even managed to construct a paper replica of the Statue of Liberty..
Speech after speech extolled the virtues of free speech and the right to assemble. As day turned into night, and night turned into day, the crowd got larger and larger, and no one was going home until the communist government bowed to their demands. Then, the tanks rolled in. International media coverage was banned, and the Army appeared on the outskirts of Tiananmen Square as government leaders ordered the students to disband. They refused. After watching and listening to their brethren in Eastern Europe, they decided to stand and fight for their future. Out of self-respect as a people, they had no choice. The government, which became increasingly nervous about the prospect of its overthrow, sent in the Army to clear the Square. In the ensuing melee, many unarmed protesters, a number in the hundreds or perhaps thousands, were murdered for attempting to exercise their basic rights as human beings. Thousands of others were jailed. Some of those protesters remain in Chinese prisons today.
.
That tragic event should have shaped the conscience and foreign policy of two generations of leaders: the baby-boomers and Generation X. However, it has sadly become a footnote - an annual paragraph on the back of newspapers for most of the world. Only the people of Hong Kong seem to recognize its historic call for unity across nations and cultures.
.
In response to the massacre, President George H.W. Bush sent National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, to Beijing on a secret diplomatic mission one month later. While sipping champagne with the very leaders that ordered the attack on their own people, Scowcroft promised to continue building the relationship between the two governments. In the view of President Bush, China could not be effectively isolated due to its geographical size and population. Moreover, the future of the American economy was at stake. By developing a Chinese middle-class capable of significant material consumption, the US would be able to gain access to the largest market in the world - an outlet for GM cars, Pittsburgh steel and millions of other American made products. In essence, realpolitik won over principle, and it remains one of the most tragic and shameful episodes in the history of American foreign policy. Instead of serving the God of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' for all people, President Bush chose instead to serve 'mammon' - the God of material wealth at the expense of truth and justice.
.
Now President Obama, to use his own language, has arrived at a 'defining moment' in history. In regard to the violent government crackdown in Iran, he has thus far acted meekly and wholly out of character - both as an American and as himself.
.
Barack Obama, where have you gone? In your memorable 2004 speech to the Democratic Convention in Boston (27 July), you roused the chamber to deafening applause by saying, 'It is that fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.' Mr. President, does not this noble truth apply on an international level as well? Rather than constructing half-hearted statements calculated not to offend anyone in the Iranian government, both Americans and people around the world are expecting nothing less than a bold statement on behalf of the oppressed population of Iran. Abraham Lincoln, the statesman Obama tries to emulate, once said, 'If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.' Could not the same be said of governments killing and imprisoning their own people without cause?
.
Recently, a large number of 'experts' have praised Obama for making sure the US does not appear to 'meddle' in the affairs of Iran. According to them, a denunciation of the Iranian government would give the hardliners a pretext to claim interference by the US and use America as a scapegoat to legitimize the crackdown. In fact, the hardliners in the government will not hesitate to blame the US for the protests regardless of any statements made by President Obama. Anti-Americanism in Iran and in the Middle East is a cottage industry and has long been a fundamental political tactic used by religious reactionaries to justify domestic tyranny. Hence, President Obama needs to stop listening to conventional wisdom and stand up for human rights. On the foreign policy front, where is the 'Change We Can Believe In?'
.
In April 2006, then Senator Obama condemned the violence in Darfur, praised the Bush administration for labeling the action of the Sudanese government as genocide and called for Americans across the nation to attend a rally for the people of Darfur. Obama's stance on Darfur was rightfully and universally praised. If the prospect of meddling into the affairs of the Sudanese government did not prevent him from speaking out against repression then, then why would he refrain from speaking out against Iranian repression now?
.
Perhaps an analogy will clarify the transcendent issue. If Franklin Roosevelt had had full knowledge of the scope of the Holocaust during WWII, should he have tempered his comments and simply said 'I'm deeply concerned' (Obama's words on Iran) in order not to offend the Nazi leadership or meddle in the domestic affairs of the Third Reich?
.
Not only Americans but the entire world must now support the people of Iran in their quest to attain the rights of free speech and free elections. America cannot afford to sell out its ideals again as it did twenty years ago during Tiananmen - for we are all our brother's and sister's keepers - from Texas to Tehran.
.
(Picture: A brave young man calling for freedom in Tiananmen Square, May 1989)
.
J Roquen