The Foreign Service Journal, May 2005

local governments. For example, human rights monitors could report on differences in local social conditions, highlighting improve- ments where possible, using a “praise and blame” approach to fuel competition among local gov- ernments to improve their relative reputations and risk-ratings among investors, both businesses and nonprofits. In sum, U.S. policy requires carrots as well as sticks. Reactive PRC government efforts to “rein in” social organizations could be countered by the sharing of rich U.S. experience with voluntary associations, encouraging proactive prob- lem-solving by the Chinese government in order to boost social development rather than reactive mea- sures to inhibit it. Given that bilateral relations have already moved into such sensitive arenas as legal-judicial exchanges and police training for Olympics security, surely the United States should be able to expand policies further to support the “thick web” of private social and cultur- al ties that are introducing new ideas and values, institutional experience and techniques that can promote social progress in China. Our previous successes in South Korea and Taiwan are prime examples of how the U.S. can help build more open and democratic societies in Asia. If we want people to change, we have to help them do so. ■ F O C U S 46 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 5 T HE R EMINGTON Outside actors need to think beyond “China” as a single national entity and begin to deal creatively with the reality of varied local situations and the needs of local governments.