• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Robert Kagan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

Politics of Torture

Link Copied
By Robert Kagan
Published on Mar 23, 2001

Source: Carnegie

Reprinted from the Washington Post, March 23, 2001

The mechanism of American human rights policy toward China generally works like this. The Chinese government tortures people. It tortures people who try to organize democratic parties, who practice Buddhism or Catholicism, or who engage in certain kinds of breathing exercises. It ties them up by their arms or upside down by their ankles and beats them with wooden poles. It listens to them howl, watches them bleed and keeps on beating them. Sometimes it beats them to death.

The U.S. government keeps records. It jots down on pieces of paper all the instances of Chinese torture. It then prepares annual reports that measure China's progress. Some years the news is good: fewer Chinese people hung from the ceiling and beaten. Most years the news is not good: more Chinese people hung from the ceiling and beaten. Every few months, the U.S. government talks to the Chinese government about this for a few minutes. The U.S. government "raises" the "issue" of human rights. Then it goes back to keeping records.

This is how the system of U.S.-China relations operates, and after more than a decade of mechanical repetition -- China tortures, the United States records and then "raises" the "issue" -- it operates pretty much on autopilot. Or it has until now. This time one of the victims is an American citizen.

The Chinese government, we learned this week, tortured a 5-year-old American child for 26 days. No, the Chinese government did not hang him upside down and beat him. But as any parent of a 5-year-old child knows, what they did do to Andrew Xue was horrifying and merciless torture just the same. They took him away from his parents. They told him nothing about where his parents were, what had happened to them, or whether he would ever see them again.

It is hard to imagine the horror and desolation this 5-year-old child must have felt during even the first hour of this ordeal. It is almost too awful to contemplate the agony Andrew suffered over the remaining 623 hours of his captivity. And of course this torture, like all tortures, had a purpose. Andrew's suffering was meant to force a confession. The Chinese government had arrested his mother, a Chinese scholar at American University named Gao Zhan, on charges of espionage.

An expert on women's issues, Gao once wrote that women in Taiwan participate more actively in politics than women in China. Making this point is a criminal offense in China. The Chinese government, therefore, wanted Andrew's father, Xue Donghua, to help incriminate her. The Chinese government tortured Andrew for 26 days to get information from his father and a "confession" out of his mother.

Now, as it happens, Andrew, unlike his parents, is an American citizen. So how has the U.S. government responded to the Chinese government's abduction and torture of an American citizen? Yesterday Secretary of State Colin Powell appropriately expressed his outrage. He's waiting for an explanation. On Wednesday State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that "if a child was detained for 20 days without access to his parents, without the benefit of consular notification, that would be a real problem for us."

How much of a problem remains to be seen, however. Powell has "raised" the "issue" with Vice Premier Qian Qichen and so has President Bush. And no doubt the whole event will be jotted down in the State Department log, although next year they will have to add to their annual record-keeping a new category: tortures of American citizens. But after the outrage subsides will American policy be any different?

And what of Gao's colleagues in the scholarly world? Well, there is a mechanism that grinds away there, too. In the United States there is a community of China experts. Many go to China to study the development of the "rule of law." They come back with statistics showing that the "rule of law" is gradually taking hold in China. They think this is a potent rebuttal to charges that China is a barbaric police state.

They argue, carefully, that it's a mistake to pay too much attention to a few hundred people hanging from ceilings. They suggest, cautiously, that a 5-year-old American boy crying himself to sleep in a Chinese jail for 26 days should not be allowed to poison the U.S.-China relationship. Then they get ready for their next trip to China -- but plan on leaving their children at home.

About the Author

Robert Kagan

Former Senior Associate

Kagan, author of the recent book, The Return of History and the End of Dreams (Knopf 2008), writes a monthly column on world affairs for the Washington Post and is a contributing editor at both the Weekly Standard and the New Republic.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Why Egypt Has To Be The U.S. Priority In The Middle East

      Michele Dunne, Robert Kagan

  • Commentary
    U.S. Policy Toward Egypt—A Primer on the Upcoming Elections

      Robert Kagan, Michele Dunne

Robert Kagan
Former Senior Associate
Robert Kagan
Political ReformForeign PolicyChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.Trump raises hands behind a lecternCarney speaking on stage
    Collection
    The Middle Power Moment?

    The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.

    Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.