• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael D. Swaine"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The Cost of Clashing with Beijing

The more Washington appears to intervene in highly sensitive Chinese human rights disputes, the less likely it is that China’s incoming leaders will make desired changes.

Link Copied
By Michael D. Swaine
Published on May 3, 2012

Source: National Interest

The escape from house arrest, flight to the U.S. embassy and subsequent departure to a Beijing hospital of well-known blind human-rights activist and self-taught lawyer Chen Guangcheng is the latest in a series of incidents that could severely damage Obama administration efforts to reduce growing friction with Beijing. The incident distracts leaders from a spate of urgent bilateral, regional and global problems. Moreover, such occurrences will almost certainly set back the state of human rights in China.

The Chen incident comes on the heels of the ongoing crisis within senior Chinese leadership triggered by February’s flight to (and then retreat from) the U.S. consulate in Chengdu of Wang Lijun, a top associate of the once up-and-coming but now disgraced Bo Xilai. Hence, it suggests a trend toward using offices of U.S. representatives in China as a safe haven for fleeing Chinese notables of all stripes. This suggests that, despite its tarnished international reputation on torture and immigration, the U.S. government is still viewed by Chinese dissidents and communist-party operatives alike as a preferred protector when compared to their own police authorities. But this should not become an established precedent, especially given that Chen is apparently in the process of embarrassing the administration and worsening the crisis by reneging on his earlier insistence on remaining in China—a key element of the deal struck with Beijing to facilitate his departure from the U.S. embassy.

More importantly, these incidents on balance serve more to undermine than benefit U.S. national interests in Washington’s increasingly complex and challenging relationship with Beijing. Occurring on the verge of a major annual Sino-U.S. meeting in Beijing and within months of a historic Chinese Communist Party Congress—the first to witness a large-scale leadership turnover in the absence of the stabilizing influence of past party chiefs such as Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong—these events threaten to draw the United States into China’s domestic leadership disputes and provide leverage to Chinese critics of the bilateral relationship. They also distract both sides from increasingly urgent problems—including maritime security in the Western Pacific, cyber security issues and crises in North Korea and Iran—without improving human-rights conditions in China.

To the contrary, Chinese hard-liners will probably use U.S. involvement in the Wang and Chen cases to push back against supporters of domestic liberalization and closer cooperation with Washington, employing the oft-used tactic of citing foreign interference in and manipulation of China’s domestic problems as part of an attempt to undermine the Chinese regime. And their arguments about American perfidy may be bolstered by recent White House actions on Taiwan.

In an effort to lift a congressional hold on the appointment of a key Defense Department official, the White House director of legislative affairs recently submitted a letter to Congress that seemingly signaled an intent to sell a significant number of advanced fighter aircraft to Taiwan. This seems to reverse the administration’s position that the 2011 decision to upgrade Taiwan’s existing fighters, in the words of the Defense Department, “meets Taiwan’s current defense needs.” Such an apparent reversal reinforces the image in China of an unpredictable, troublemaking Washington. Moreover, this apparent gaffe, along with the possibly poorly coordinated (within Washington) admittance of Chen Guangcheng to the Beijing embassy, suggests an absence of central control over U.S. China policy.

Taken together, these developments may place Chinese supporters of a more cooperative U.S.-China relationship on the defensive and almost certainly lead to increased domestic repression. In particular, apparent successors to leadership Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang may now be under greater pressure to affirm the solidarity and rectitude of the Chinese party leadership in the face of such internal criticism and external “threats.” This will in turn diminish support for more decisive moves toward greater openness and reform.

Human rights are an important aspect of U.S. policy toward China. But they are not likely to be advanced via high-profile encounters with Beijing, whether over dissidents such as Chen Guangcheng or efforts to assist losers in internal political fights such as Wang Lijun. The more Washington appears to intervene in highly sensitive Chinese political and human-rights disputes, the less likely it is that we will see the kinds of positive changes in China that many have hoped would emerge from the new central leadership.

This article was originally published in National Interest.

About the Author

Michael D. Swaine

Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Swaine was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of the most prominent American analysts in Chinese security studies.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    What Kind of Global Order Should Washington and Beijing Strive For?

      Michael D. Swaine

  • Commentary
    A Smarter U.S. Strategy for China in Four Steps

      Michael D. Swaine

Michael D. Swaine
Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Michael D. Swaine
Political ReformForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?

    The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.

      Maria Kolomychenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?

    After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive. 

      Tatiana Stanovaya

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.