The Missing Man In Beijing

Chas W. Freeman, a U.S. diplomat who served as Richard Nixon's interpreter when he arrived in Beijing 40 years ago today, had a confession to make during an anniversary panel discussion last week at the former Nixon Center in Washington:

When I tried to sleep on Air Force One on the way to Beijing, I was jolted awake by a nightmare. I dreamed that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek would be standing there with his old political sparring partner and secret pen pal, Zhou Enlai. In my dream, Chiang stepped forward to greet his former friend and political backer, Richard Nixon with a loudly sarcastic “long time, no see!” As we pulled up to the shabby old structure that was then the only terminal at Beijing’s airport, I peered anxiously out the window. Others were elated to see Premier Zhou emerge to greet us. I was merely relieved that he was there pretty much by himself.


Top: Nixon meeting Zhou Enlai in Beijing, Feb. 21, 1972. Bottom: Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek with communist leader Mao Zedong during their World War II alliance

Chasmataz

Disappointment from the left about the Chas Freeman debacle.

It Takes Both Kinds

Andrew Sullivan has been among the most eloquent advocates of the blogosphere (all too often, the hackosphere), which admittedly sometimes breaks or elaborates stories that the MSM has missed or neglected. But here, ironically enough, he longs for an old-fashioned, rigorously reported newspaper thumbsucker documenting how former State Department official Chas Freeman was done out of a job chairing an intelligence board largely by bloggers, with the MSM barely noticing. If it's written, I guess it'll be a story about the reportorial shortcomings and ideological opportunism of both the old and new media.

Seeing All Sides In The Middle East

Here's former AP reporter Robert Parry's survey of the debate over President Obama's appointment of Chas W. Freeman to a top intelligence post. He's a realist when it comes to the Middle East, which means that he has criticized Israel and is open to the perspective of Arabs and Palestinians. Critics say that means he's essentially a pro-Arab ideologue for refusing to acknowledge Israel's superior moral standing.

The debate has obvious Cold War resonances. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were viciously attacked by conservative Republicans and nascent neocons (and spied on by the Pentagon) as they reduced tensions with the Soviet Union, setting the stage for the end of the Cold War.

Today the issue is whether U.S. policymakers will acknowledge the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people as they try to fashion a peaceful and just endgame for the struggle of struggles in the Middle East. Friends of Israel, the only democracy in the region and our moral partner since its establishment in 1948, are rightly vigilant about any move that could threaten Israel's security. But it's wrong -- and, in a way, an investment in indefinite bloodshed -- to attack and try to silence Freeman for his views, which will help the U.S. be a smarter friend of Israel and a more effective agent for peace.

* * *

A blogging brother suggests that I shouldn't neglect charges against Ambassador Freeman that he has financial conflicts of interest that preclude his serving. Andrew Sullivan analyzes the trajectory of the Freeman controversy and shows that it began with outrage over his views. I'm with Sullivan. If there's a compelling financial question, then it should be judged strictly on its demerits.

Tough Talk About Tough Problems

Chas Freeman, who was President Nixon's translator in Beijing in 1972 and who is reportedly being eyed by President Obama for a top intelligence post, is under fire because of statements such as this, from 2007:

"We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists," he said. "This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible ... [K]illing, incarcerating, or otherwise humiliating Arabs and other Muslims who sympathize with Al Qaeda does not defeat the enemy; it aids him."