The sounds of silence on Chen Guangcheng

Your humble blogger has been silent on the ongoing Chen Guangcheng case in China.  To be fair, however, I was merely copying what the Chinese and U.S. governments were doing:  furiously not commenting on the case as the next Strategic and Economic Dialogue between Washington and Beijing commences. 

Since other people are starting to say really stupid things comment on it, however, I’m required by the International Brotherhood of Foreign Policy Pundits to weigh on the matter.  So, a few random thoughts:

1)  My expectation on how this will play out:  unless Wen Jiabao has a lot more authority than I think, this ends in a year or so when Chen leaves China.  Chen wants to stay in China.  Given that he was under some kind of extralegal confinement rather than house arrest, one could envision Wen using this as a way of expanding on the "crush Bo" campaign currently emanating from Beijing.  In other words, Wen could use this to clamp down on abuses by out-of-control regional governors.  But, to be honest, I doubt Wen has that much authority — in which case this ends with Chen out of China in a way that embarrasses Beijing the least. 

2)  The fact that both Beijing and Washington have kept their mouths shut on Chen is a pretty surprising but positive sign about the overall stability/resilience of Sino-American relations.  Bear in mind that according to the latest reports, much of the leadership in Beijing takes an increasingly conspiratorial view of the United States.  As for the mood in Washington, well, let’s just call it unfriendly towards China.  Both sides are in the middle of big leadership decisions, making the incentive to cater to nationalist domestic interests even stronger than normal.  With the rest of the Pacific Rim trying to latch themselves onto the U.S. security umbrella, this could have been the perfect match to set off a G-2 powderkeg. 

Despite all of these incentives for escalating the dispute, however, it hasn’t happened.  Kurt Campbell was dispatched to Beijing, talks are ongoing, and neither side appears to be interested in ramping up domestic audience costs.  That escalation hasn’t happened despite massive political incentives on both sides to let it happen suggests that, contrary to press fears about Chen blowing up the bilateral relationship, there are powerful pressures in Washington and Beijing to find a solution that saves as much face as humanly possible for both sides. 

3)  Mitt Romney has been vocal about Chen’s case, concluding:  "Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the facts of the Chinese government’s denial of political liberties, its one-child policy, and other violations of human rights." 

To which I say… good for him!!  It’s the job of the opposition party in the United States to bring up questions about China’s human rights problem.  It’s the job of the opposition party because the moment the opposition takes power, all those structural pressures I alluded to previously kick in, and the human rights rhetoric from the campaign trail inevitably fades away.  So Republicans who expect a President Romney to be all over the human rights issue will be sorely disappointed.  That said, even someone like myself who is more realpolitik-friendly nevertheless would be sorely disappointed if human rights faded away completely (it’s also worth noting that after the Obama administration’s first year in office, they seemed to find their rhythm with respect to talking about human rights towards China). 

Am I missing anything?