By Sabrina McCutchan

When American President Woodrow Wilson initiated the League of Nations in 1919, his aim was to create an organization that would unite national governments in the pursuit of a global agenda: peace. Criticism of the move, however, flowed thick and fast, with perhaps the most lasting objection being that America should not serve as the “world’s policeman.”

There is little doubt that the United States could fill such a role, especially after the end of the Cold War and the political decline of the only major contender for international hegemony. The topic of “policing” has been raised more recently in critiques of America’s foreign wars.  Now, a spike in longstanding tensions between the U.S. and China over human rights issues, caused by the sentencing of a Chinese dissident, has again pushed the question to the forefront of the political scene; except, it has been re-worded. Critics no longer ask if America should serve as the world’s policeman, but if it can.

Tan Zuoren, a Chinese magazine editor and environmentalist, was officially sentenced to five years in prison for subversion of state power on February 9. The Chinese government claims that several emails written by Mr. Tan criticizing the 1989 bloodshed at Tiananmen Square are designed to undermine state power, and is using these emails as grounds for the charge.

The sentencing has sent Chinese and American human rights activists into an uproar. According to the New York Times, Amnesty International alleges the real impetus behind Mr. Tan’s sentencing is his plan to release a criticism of state-directed school construction in Sichuan Province, where thousands of children died in a 2008 earthquake as schools collapsed (“Editor Reviewing China Quake Deaths Is Sentenced”). In both scenarios, the Chinese government has obstructed Tan’s freedom of speech, which is protected under China’s constitution according to 2004 revisions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have been hesitant to address human rights in China. Obama, against protests from the Chinese government, met with the Dalai Lama on February 18 – but the President took pains to make the meeting appear casual, refusing to see the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office (the meeting took place in the Map Room). By receiving a political leader from a region victimized by China in such a manner, Obama has allowed China to dictate his treatment of foreign dignitaries.

Clinton publicly supported Google’s plan to stop censoring search results on its China engine as a step towards freer expression in the nation, triggering a rebuke from the Chinese government. The Secretary of State has kept silent, however, as a confrontation unfolds between Google and China over attempted hacking by people affiliated with the Chinese military. Google’s threats to pull its program from Chinese webspace unless free speech rights are honored have received no backing from American leadership.

Despite the limited action that has been taken, the overall message sent by America remains conciliatory as China’s global economic and political power continues to grow. It would be an exaggeration to say this strategy has caused a confrontation among Democrats, but human rights activists are unhappy with what appears to be the prioritization of economic and trade concerns over the welfare of the Chinese people, a strategy typically attributed to the Republican Party. At the same time, the political leadership in Washington is constrained by the enormous foreign trade deficit and a desire for Chinese cooperation regarding matters of international policy, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

These economic and political circumstances , which make America somewhat dependent on China’s good will, make the question of America’s “policing” habits a moot point. The country’s political leadership has neither the motivation nor the mettle to challenge China’s human rights violations. Gone are the days when a months-long hostage crisis overseas can be ended by a single warning from the White House. The U.S. is grappling with so many other issues that the social politics of the Chinese government currently have no place on its list of concerns.

In fact, the resurgence of human rights as a point of global attention does not derive from any change in equilibrium on the issue — China still offends, America still halfheartedly slaps them on the wrist with the national media — but rather from an increased focus on China itself. Human rights have merely been dragged into the media limelight by habit and happenstance.

This does not mean that the U.S. should never be concerned with China’s human rights policy. America has, on several occasions, infringed on the sovereignty of foreign powers when great injustice has occurred (the plight of those in occupied France during WWII comes to mind). Whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are another manifestation of that principle is hotly debated, but will be passed over here.

Should the situation in China progress to a point where the populace is treated with blatant injustice and brutality, then America may have grounds to interfere – the nation’s legacy of so-called “policing” in such matters suggests that it would interfere. But events have not escalated to that point, and America has its own concerns, and so for now China’s human rights matters will continue to decorate the headlines of international newspapers instead of the headings of U.S. policy memos.