Analysis of two stories
The two reports targeted the citizens of U.K in an attempt to show them the government’s concern in increasing trade with other countries. Citizens are directly influenced by the activities of the government. The UK citizens always want to know whether the government cares about their welfare. (Desmoyers-Davis 2001) The reports addressed the concerns of the people of U.K because we find that the prime minister always addressed the issues that would be beneficial to his country. By failing to comment on human rights, it shows the concern that Cameron has on his country such that he did not want to jeopardize chances of having trade relations with China. The major concern of the readers is to know that their country is growing economically.
The tone of the two reports was positive. The writer showed optimism in writing the reports because he showed how the prime minister addressed the people of china so that they could establish trade relations. It is however sad in the first report when he states that Cameron avoided commenting on human rights. By indicating that there were agreements that were made, the reports help to bring out a happy mood that is of great importance to the reader. The mission of the trip is brought out clearly in the headings that are provided by the writer. They help to capture the attention of the reader (Lasky 2000). In the first report, the heading captures prime minister’s speech in China. The writer also gives subheadings that give a highlight of the report. He used italics to highlight about the poppies that led to a diplomatic incident. The reports are in simple words that every reader can understand. In addition, the font is bold to signify the importance of the reports.
We observe that during the visit to china, there were businessmen and other diplomats that accompanied the prime minister. During this visit Rolls-Royce signed an agreement with the China Airlines in Beijing that is worth 750 pounds. This was a fulfillment of the mission of the delegation. The prime minister stipulated some of the challenges that his government is facing. He cited opposition, media and frustrations by courts. This contradicted the mission of the visit second report because it would have made China to doubt whether the U.K government would perform. However, by informing China about the challenges in U.K, it was a sign that they were willing to do business with them.
Cameron stated that China will be serving its own interests when it opens up to multiparty democracy, free press and the rule of law. He states that this would enhance economic stability. Though these measures are important, we observe that there is rapid economic growth being experienced in china despite using an authoritarian system of government. However, in multi-party system, government control is minimal. Encouraging multi-party system will enhance trade relations between the two countries. However, this could be a contradiction of the mission to china especially if the comments by the prime minister are observed as upsetting to China. Therefore, the prime minister should not have given specific conditions to China because of the trade interests. This would have avoided contradicting the host.
It is also evident from the speech of the prime minister that he avoided speaking about the importance of upholding human rights. This should be the political reforms that are expected to enhance economic growth. He avoided commenting on human rights despite Liu Xiaobo, the dissent Nobel Prize winner being in prison. This was done in an attempt to avoid upsetting China through criticizing them. This is directly related to their mission in china and therefore they avoided any activity that would have brought contradictions. However, this is not a sincere move and it shows the self interests that Britain had such that they would bear with denial of basic human rights as long as they benefited. Though the delegation sought to establish trade relations that would have mutual benefits, UK had self interests in the relationship.
When the delegation moved to China, it coincided with the period when some Britons died in a war with china where they were defeated by the British on their own land. The Chinese diplomats had requested that the Prime minister and his delegation should not wear poppies in remembrance of the Britons that denied in the war. They stated that the poppies would be offensive and they would be a reminder of the wars that took place in the 19th century. However, the delegation did not comply because they spotted the poppies when they attended the meetings on Tuesday and this led to a diplomatic incident. This did not indicate a spirit of good relations because as potential economic partners, it was absolutely wrong to engage in any activity that would be offensive to the other party. It was actually in bad faith because Chinese diplomats had requested that they should not wear the poppies. Such an activity should not have been done by the Prime Minister and his delegation because it was a contradiction of the relations they sought to establish in trade in the second report`.
The move to China was also timely considering the challenges that the banking industry was facing in UK. The delegation made agreements with China at a time when Vince Cable, business secretary dismissed threats by UK-based banks to move their headquarters to Asia. This was based on the government’s attempt to crack down on the banker’s bonuses. Therefore, the move to China was an indication of the fear that these banks would move to China and therefore they sought to make agreements that would help them to establish structures that are mutually beneficial. Therefore, the trip to China may have been directly related to those threats. This did not represent the reforms that Cameron was referring to.
However, there could have been other motives. Though the British delegates indicated that the agreements were part of partnership for growth, the move could have aimed at ensuring that the banks do not move to China.
Desmoyers-Davis, T 2001, Citizenship in modern Britain, Routledge, Manchester.
Lasky, J. M 2000, The language of journalism, Transaction Publishers, New York.