This message was self-deleted by its author

[grantcart]

13. The proof is in getting real results.

No one expected Burma to emerge from the stranglehold of decades of dictatorship.

It did because of private multilateral discussions between the US, Europe and ASEAN.

"lecturing China" isn't my perception it is China's

What you suggest is that we make high principled statements that compare our theoretical principles with their actual realities.

That's what Kissinger and the Soviets did to each other for years. We would compare our theory with their reality and they would compare their theory with our reality.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are not using anything approaching Realpolitik. Realpolitik is based on a regime centric methodology that is based on the assumption that the same elites will always be in power.

They are using patient multilateralism working on establishing broad areas of commonality with interests of reform in the country (see Egypt, Libya, Burma for example) by maintaining pressure to change and providing positive rewards when mutually agreed objectives have been achieved.

You could not make a more inappropriate comparison between what this administration is doing and what Kissinger has done and that difference has meant that millions of people have moved much much closer to freedom as a result.

BTW providing sanctuary to a high profile Chinese dissident is louder than 30 lectures or 'statements'. If you think that giving dissidents sanctuary was something akin to what Kissinger's Realpolitik then I have to assume that you were studying diplomacy by watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.