What does "simply does not work" exactly mean?

Writing about China

Similar to the vast majority of China-related articles in the mainstream media, the article “Rules of engagement” (feature, Jan. 24) is written to the taste of American readership and appears to be a balanced report of representative opinions.

I worry about the impact of the article, however. While the content is truthful in isolation, the article may have reinforced the misunderstanding and unrealistic expectations of China by the American public.

I actively participated in the pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. I came to the United States in 1990. During the following years, I was shocked to witness the extremely negative portrayal and demonization of China by American media. Don’t get me wrong — I agree that what was reported has been mostly truthful in isolation. However, by relentlessly focusing on a tiny spot of a vast country of extreme diversity, the American media give American people an extremely biased view of China.

This problem is not remedied in “Rules of engagement,” which failed to give adequate coverage from the Chinese side. If we do not understand how China thinks of our view on engagement, how can we define rules of engagement? Aren’t we simply lecturing the Chinese on how to engage and how to follow our rules? Aren’t we imposing our values and ideas on the Chinese without understanding them first?

The fundamental issue, both here and on issues related to China, is not freedom of speech, but mutual understanding. To me, Americans simply do not have a basic understanding of China or the Chinese, and American media have yet to make a serious endeavor to cover China in a fair and balanced manner. Much too often, when an effort is made, interjecting biased comment immediately defeats the purpose. China is changing fast in all aspects of life, but our views on China have been stagnant.

I spent the first 23 years of my life in China, having lived in a village of extreme poverty, a small town of frugality and ethnic division, a provincial capital with a booming economy and social changes, and the capital city of China. There is no doubt in my mind that democracy in the U.S. style simply does not work in China. Singing high praises of freedom of speech and democracy is one matter; advancing a vast country of extreme diversity is another.

Shouldn’t Iraq be a lesson for us all? Keep in mind: The complexity in Iraq is not in the same order of magnitude as that in China.

YIGONG SHI
Professor, Department of Molecular Biology

"simply" has no meaning, omit and continue. If you come across "just does not work" then similarly omit "just". These words are added for style only.

the original writer, in my opinion, should have written "would not work"