The title of a NY Times article, “Always Awkward, New Rights with China Now May Be Hopeless,” is enough to warrant a few raised eyebrows. Again, right from the get-go, the article seems to perpetuate the perception of the Chinese as inflexible negotiators, staunchly opposed to making any positive strides on human rights issues. What’s funny about this article is that the online version maintained the original heading, but the print version, which was released the following day, was titled “Bleak Outlook for US-China Talks.” Upon another look at the online article 2 days later, the article was re-titled yet again to “Grim Outlook for US-China Talks on Human Rights.” The reason for the changes remains unclear, and I don’t know enough about journalistic practices to make any substantial claims on the matter…but I just thought it was another interesting point to make note of.
For the past two days, China and America have engaged in human rights talks held annually for the past two decades. Given the circumstances of China’s recent crackdown on political dissidents, America has been pushing hard for China to adopt alternative strategies to dealing with such opposition. The writer notes, “The Chinese government has been in no mood to discuss its heavy-handed behavior, warning the United States this week that it would brook no interference in its domestic affairs and adding, as a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman explained, that 'China does not fear the antagonism of other countries.'" In using words like “heavy-handed” and “antagonism,” the writer portrays the Chinese government as bearing some sort of threat and hostility. While the article primarily depicts China in an aggressive manner, it also does a good job at presenting the importance of China in terms of cooperative/mutual ventures like addressing climate change, confronting security issues, mitigating the global economic recession, etc. In this way, I appreciate the article for taking more than just a unilateral approach to the issue of China, particularly on matters of cooperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment