Chinese Media Knock U.S. Ambassador to China for Being Too Popular

Gary Locke has become a minor celebrity in China for his modest, unassuming lifestyle, drawing the apparent ire of state-run outlets

U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke walks out of his residence with his family before speaking to the media in Beijing / Reuters

It scarcely seems possible, but apparently some Chinese commentators are put out that the U.S. ambassador has garnered so much favorable press in his first month on the job. In recent days, the Chinese media have published a number of commentaries criticizing not only the ambassador but also some of their fellow journalists, who they believe are paying too much attention to Ambassador Locke's activities. Stripped to its essence, the criticism of Ambassador Locke is that he is a nice guy, who is simply too good at representing U.S. values. It would be laughable, if it didn't point to a real challenge in the Sino-American relationship.

The trouble began as soon as the ambassador was nominated. Anonymous postings on various Internet chat sites in China accused him of being a "fake foreign devil who cannot even speak Chinese" and a "guy who has forgotten his ancestors." Traitor was not an uncommon epithet.

MORE FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:
The Need For U.S. Trade Policy
Thaksin Coming Back, Now What?
Foreign Investment on the Rise In Burma
New Questions About Chinese Innovation

Yet when the ambassador arrived, the tide appeared to turn. A series of candid photos of the ambassador with his family--carrying their own luggage, riding in a minivan, and flying economy class -elicited a tidal wave of positive media and popular attention. An Air China attendant reported: "Yesterday Ambassador Locke took our plane en route to Beijing. He refused to be on the VIP traveler list, turned down a seat in the first class, and passed up an arranged ride home. Sitting in the economy class, he was polite and low-key." This comment was reposted 25,000 times, with netizens frequently mentioning the need for Chinese officials to learn from the ambassador's behavior.

Now the ambassador appears to be caught in the midst of a political firestorm, albeit not one of his own making. A series of offensive commentaries have popped up over the past weeks accusing him of all forms of evil intent: newscaster Rui Chenggang, after directing a rude question to the ambassador at the WEF in Dalian a few weeks ago, wrote that the ambassador is "promoting American values," and only talking about what is good about the United States. The Guangming Daily warned the Chinese people not to be "seduced by Gary Locke's façade"...after all, who is to say that it "isn't the intention of the U.S. to use a Chinese to control the Chinese and incite political chaos in China." And most recently, the Global Times has joined the fray, arguing that it is "unbelievable that Locke's casual stroll through hutongs with his family could win so much praise." Moreover, a "U.S. ambassador should devote himself to the relationship between China and the U.S. rather than play a role in Chinese media. A U.S. ambassador becoming a political star in China cannot be interpreted as U.S. respect for China."

Back in the day, these media commentaries would have been the end of the story. With the Internet, however, the Chinese people have the opportunity to talk back. And talk they have, with many continuing to praise the ambassador as a model for Chinese officials and some pointing out that such articles merely reveal a fear of America's values and institutions. As the Guangming Daily article, itself, pointed out: "If the Chinese regime fails to take the initiative to consciously remove the virus in its bureaucracy...it can only watch Locke winning the hearts of the Chinese people."

The post of U.S. ambassador to China has long been filled by some of America's most talented diplomats and/or closest presidential confidantes. It is a sign of respect to China that this is the case. If the Chinese government would rather the U.S. not continue this tradition, it should let Washington know. We have plenty of sub-par politicians, political hacks, and indicted officials we can send their way.

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

About the Author

A new study shows that families act on insufficient information when it comes to figuring out where to enroll their children.

A person trying to choose their next set of wheels might see that car A made it farther than car B in a road test and assume it gets better gas mileage. But that’s only true if the two tanks are filled with the same substance. Putting high-octane gas in one and water in the other, for example, provides little useful information about which car makes the most of its fuel. A new working paper titled “Do Parents Value School Effectiveness?” suggests that parents similarly opt for schools with the most impressive graduates rather than figuring out which ones actually teach best. The study joins a body of research looking critically at what it means for a school to be successful.

Take the work of Erin Pahlke, for example. The assistant professor of psychology at Whitman College saw research showing that girls who attend school only with other girls tend to do better in math and science. The trick, she said, is that those studies didn’t analyze “differences in the students coming into the schools.” As it turns out, those who end up in same-sex schools tend to be wealthier, start out with more skills, and have parents who are more proactive than students who attend co-ed institutions. In a 2014 meta-analysis, Pahlke and her colleagues reviewed the studies and found when examining schools with the same type of students and same level of resources—rather than “comparing [those at] the public co-ed school to [their counterparts at] the fancy private school that’s single-sex down the road”—there isn’t any difference in how the students perform academically. Single-sex schooling also hasn’t been shown to offer a bump in girls’ attitudes toward math and science or change how they think about themselves. In other words, it often looks like single-sex schools are doing a better job educating kids, but they aren't. It's just that their graduates are people who were going to do well at any school. They’re running on high-octane gas.