Lawmaker's rhetoric during President Hu's state visit

I was really excited to see how the U.S. was going to receive Chinese president Hu Jintao’s visit this week. A lot has happened throughout the world since the Chinese president’s last visit in 2006 including China officially becoming the world’s second largest economy, the U. S. financial meltdown, as well as human rights concerns in Xinjiang, Tibet, and the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. This state meeting has very important implications not only for the future of both countries but also for the entire world. Over the past two decades, China has experienced rapid economic growth, and it is projected to surpass the U.S. in GDP by the early 2020s. However, the U.S. will continue to economically influence the world, and China will still be much poorer on average than the U.S. The U.S. will also continue to have the strongest military in the world, which is unlikely to change very soon. Through diplomacy and mutually beneficial trade, the United States will have an unprecedented ability to exert a positive influence over China in its development, political agenda, and its human rights record.
It was with these expectations of establishing good relations as well as providing gradual instruction that led me to be very disappointed this week. Although the lavish state dinner was a very nice gesture, rhetoric from U.S. lawmakers, while perhaps even accurate, set a very ugly tone and could jeopardize friendly relations. It seems to be very easy for politicians to run on a platform almost purely based on blame and fear. This political strategy works equally well for both political parties when applied to China. During the recent 2010 midterm elections, the only issue that candidates from both parties seemed to agree on was that China was stealing jobs from the U.S. and undermining the very U.S. economy. Even if this statement were completely true, there would be an aspect of American society at its root. If these issues are of such concern, why not just refuse to buy goods from China? The reason is that somewhere along the line, American society has made the judgment call that the desire for cheap goods outweighs these other issues. However, I digress slightly. The fact remains that it is not only politically tenable, but also seemingly profitable to bash China in politics.
A few of my favorite quotes so far: Republican congresswoman Dana Rohrabacher called China a “gangster regime that murders their own people and should be treated in that way” and Senator Harry Reid calling President Hu a “dictator”. My concern is not with whether these statements are true or false, it is with the purpose of these statements and their implications. Why make such inflammatory statements to publicly embarrass and confront a world leader? None of these statements will elicit any change from China or help any desire of the Chinese people for basic freedoms. Nor will these statements make China more tractable on its currency policy and in its trade agreements. I doubt President Hu and other governmental leaders will listen to “advice” or criticism framed in such a manner. In fact, the argument can even be made that such negative rhetoric would hurt U.S. relations and prevent future diplomacy from taking place. I doubt even the general Chinese public will hear these statements and be very happy about them. The Chinese government has absolute control over Chinese media and could easily take such statements and turn them against the United States, and people will not rally around the banner of democracy and take to the streets in revolution. I am by no means arguing for the U.S. to be silent on human rights abuses or ignore blatant currency manipulation by the Chinese government. Instead, I am saying that fiery rhetoric harms the only ability of the U.S., diplomacy, the address these grievances. The fact is that it is slightly foolish to think that the U.S. can set policy in China or even that such policy changes will take place immediately. Instead, if politicians really cared about human rights abuses in China, they would work to develop diplomatic relations in the hopes of engendering gradual change. This type of public condemnation and vitriolic rhetoric serves only political purposes and personal agendas which regrettably harm the opportunity for progress to be made on important issues.