Locke for Commerce?

The Seattle Times reports that Gary Locke (Wiki) is being considered for the Commerce position.

President Barack Obama's likely third pick for Commerce secretary is former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, a senior administration official said Monday.

Locke, a Democrat, was the nation's first Chinese-American governor when he served two terms in the Washington statehouse from 1997 to 2005.

Note the quote at the bottom of the article:

Since leaving office he's been working for the Seattle-based law firm Davis Wright Tremaine on issues involving China, energy and governmental relations. He argues that global engagement is a way to improve China's human rights record and deal with piracy of intellectual property.

As I am sure my readers know, the idea that "global engagement is a way to improve China's human rights record" is panda-hugging bullshit for "I don't give a damn how many people China locks up, how many neighbors it threatens and invades, and how inimical China is to the interests of the US and its allies, I just want to cash in." Davis Wright Tremaine does a rousing business in and about China, so Locke will be one of many Obama Administration officials who come out such backgrounds. Locke is married to a woman of Chinese extraction, and visited China a few years back, where he was feted as a "lost brother" etc etc.

Urk.

UPDATE: My friend Andrew writes:

I usually vote Democrat and I voted for Locke two times, but I feel at this time I must make a written appeal against him as a nominee for Secretary of Commerce.

First, I would like to commend Mr. Locke on the fine work he has done in reaching out to the Asian American communities of the Pacific Northwest and for his dedicated service to the State of Washington.

Regardless, as a leader of Seattle's Taiwanese American community between 2004 and 2006, I deeply regret that Mr. Locke never took the time to answer our repeated concerns regarding his business and political dealings with China. I personally sent Mr. Locke and his firm three letters on behalf of our community and Mr. Locke simply chose not to acknowledge us. This behavior was in sharp contrast to that of Governor Christine Gregoire, who offered her assurances and acknowledgement of our position.

In our letters we sought to voice caution to Mr. Locke's dealings with the PRC. We understood his commitment to fostering improved economic relations between Washington State and the People's Republic of China (PRC), but we felt it would be irresponsible for our state representatives to blindly pursue business relationships without addressing the threat the PRC poses to peace and stability in the Pacific rim, through its rapid militarization, which is aimed, not just at democratic Taiwan, but beyond.

In recent years, the PRC has leveraged its growing economic clout against foreign nations to buy complacency over its aggressive acquisition of advanced military hardware aimed at keeping the people of Taiwan from expressing their desire to be recognized internationally as members of a free and independent Taiwanese nation. President Hu Jintao's "One China Policy", and the continued threat of military action against Taiwan, is not merely a danger to the Taiwanese people, but it is also a danger to Washington State's vitally important Asia-Pacific trade as the PRC attempts to project power deep into the Pacific. Under the rule of Mr. Locke's friend President Hu, the PRC has increased its arsenal of offensive weapons, including warships, submarines, aircraft carriers, advanced tactical fighter jets, and over 1200 medium range ballistic missiles, all of which are to be deployed as terror weapons in an attempt to suppress Taiwan's burgeoning national identity. Recently, a military general from the PRC boasted of deploying nuclear weapons against the United States should the US attempt to abide by its legal obligation to defend Taiwan against a PRC attack.

Furthermore, China continues to resist efforts to recognize the universal human rights of all people. This is evident through its violent campaigns against religious groups, Tibetan autonomy and overall political dissent. Locke and other US leaders have maintained a policy which assumes a "superiority" over the Chinese and therefore, the policy follows, "if we can make them more like us then they will improve". This is delusional neocolonial thinking that assumes there is a superior and inferior way of doing things and therefore the superior will naturally win. The truth of the matter is, those with power over others do not relinquish that power voluntarily. China's ills will not change with increased trade, those with power will only amass more wealth and more power.

It was our hope that Mr. Locke would have had the moral courage, in the interest of Washington State, and in our shared values of human rights, dignity and peace for all people, to impart on President Hu the importance of human rights, an unconditional peace in the Pacific and in the need for a reduction in the PRC's outlandish military spending.

At no time has Mr. Locke ever take the opportunity to raise these issues with his Chinese friends and we feel he will lead the United States blindly toward an even greater reliance on China, to a position in which we, as Americans, will not be able to hold our heads high with the knowledge that we value our own ideals and the creed of our nation enough to stand up against universal injustice and stand for the basic rights of all people.

Please write to your representatives and voice your concerns regarding this appointment.

Thank You!

Andrew D. Kerslake

UPDATE 2: Locke lays out his philosophy of engagement in this short interview. A highlight:

Q: How would you deal with the problem of Internet censorship in China?

A: It really requires cooperation and agreements among governments around the world on basic protocols and basic standards in the flow of information. Our definition of pornography is tougher than the definition in Europe. Things we absolutely do not allow are legal in Europe. Things that are illegal in Europe are legal in the United States. Things legal all over the world are illegal in the Middle East.

It puts international companies in an untenable position responding to different standards by each separate government. What we really need to be pursuing is having China and the U.S. participate in creating those standards.

[Taiwan]