Chinese-Americans have recently staged protests around the country and here in Atlanta over CNN commentator Jack Cafferty's characterization of China and its people.

In response to a question on the U.S. stake in maintaining a good relationship with China, Cafferty vomited a tirade that characterized China and its people as being "goons and thugs" seeking to sell us their "junk with lead paint" and "poisoned dog food".

Our protection of free speech allows for cartoonish curmudgeons such as Cafferty to spew their gasping rants. It also allows, thankfully, such offensive remarks to be boiled in the pot of public commentary and revealed for what they represent. Free speech also allows Chinese-Americans to protest Cafferty's remarks publicly and peacefully.

Regrettably, Cafferty's characterizations are not isolated. As the Olympic flame has traveled through Western countries, the Chinese security detail accompanying runners has been characterized as "goons," "retarded," "thugs" and "mysterious". The Associated Press breathlessly reported that these units are part of the "paramilitary corps, chosen for their skills in martial arts, marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat."

Never mind that security details have routinely been utilized by past Olympic hosts to protect the flame and its carriers as it travels around the world. Western governments, including the U.S., routinely allow foreign security units to protect foreign officials, embassies and consulates. It doesn't matter that China's security detail is unarmed, unless you consider a cigarette lighter, used in case the flame is extinguished, a weapon.

Last year's London leg of the Tour de France was accompanied by French police officers on motorcycles wearing paramilitary-style uniforms. At the time, as U.K. commentator Brendan O'Neill observed, no one found reason to ask, "Who let the frogs in?"

Comments such as Cafferty's have a racial undertone that is a deeply unfortunate part of the history of the United States and other Western countries. In the 19th century, Chinese immigrants, brought into this country to work in mining, manufacturing, heavy labor and as domestic workers, were characterized as "mysterious," "brutes," "goons," "coolies" and "rice-eaters." This "yellow peril," it was thought, was an epidemic bound to terribly infect the country.

While the words "yellow peril" may not be overtly used today, the sentiment is reflected in a fear of China that borders on paranoia. China has become a convenient symbol for everything we see wrong with our country. China holds billions of U.S. government securities, which makes us supposedly "hostage" to them. China has "hollowed out our manufacturing" with their cheap labor, which "Benedict Arnold companies" from the U.S. exploit. Our presidential candidates speak about how they'll keep Chinese companies from selling us toxic dog food and toys that poison our children.

I'm not some wide-eyed Westerner infected with "China fever." You don't have to travel far beyond the gleaming skyscrapers of Shanghai to see that China is a developing country with many problems. Despite significant gains in national living standards, rural poverty is staggering. The country's health care system is years behind what we enjoy, and pollution is a major problem in almost every major Chinese city.

Which China, however, would you rather have?

Today's China, seeking to join the world economic order, or yesterday's China, which walled itself off and characterized the United States as an enemy? Which is preferable: Chinese marching in the streets with effigies of Uncle Sam with blood-drenched fangs, as occurred decades ago, or Chinese marching into their local stock brokerage to place an order? Wouldn't you rather have disputes with China being settled in the World Trade Organization as opposed to over a gun barrel?

Contrary to what the left and right fringes would have us believe, the promotion of commercial ties between the United States and China is as serious an act of peacemaking as one can imagine. It's often messy, creating angst on both sides.

On the other hand, China's embrace of markets and trade and its gradual integration into the world's financial system binds us together in ways producing peaceful co-existence much more effectively than any peace treaty.

As the United States experienced its own economic rise in the early 19th century, British manufacturer and statesman Richard Cobden argued that "free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace." Over the long haul, Cobden's Great Britain was hardly economically devastated by the economic rise of its North American colonies. Great Britain not only learned to benefit and prosper, but also eventually became our strongest ally.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, it's imperative that we follow this example from history. A "back to the future" alternative is an ominous solution.

> John Ray, president of Heritage China Partners, an investment banking/private equity partnership, chairs the Georgia-China Alliance, which promotes commerce and collaboration between Georgia and China.