Fate of Chen at core of US-China relations After Twitter protests and Facebook revolutions, here comes a YouTube diplomatic crisis about human rights. Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident lawyer who campaigned against forced abortions, apparently took refuge last Thursday in the US embassy in Beijing. Within a day, a personal video describing his escape from house arrest was all over the internet, long before either government had thought through a response. The result is that the US and China have a narrow window to negotiate a quick solution to this stand-off. If they do not, the risk is that positions harden and domestic politics start to take over. In the US, the dye is already cast. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has been casting around for ways to frame Barack Obama as weak on foreign policy. He has effectively put the Obama administration on notice that he will kick up an almighty fuss if the US does not do everything to protect Mr Chen. Most Americans would agree with him. It was relatively easy for the US state department to send Wang Lijun, Chonqing police chief, on his way in February when he turned up at the consulate in Chengdu, given his long record as perpetrator rather than victim of rights abuses. But Chen Guangcheng is the real deal, a genuine hero of the human rights cause in China. In China, the possible reactions are more balanced. At a time when Premier Wen Jiabao is pushing again the banner of political reform, the Chen Guangcheng case is an opportunity for the centre to make a stand in the name of rule of law, blaming out-of-control local officials for his ordeal. At the same time, the longer the stand-off continues, the easier it is to imagine conservative voices complaining about US interference in Chinese politics and calling on Beijing to dig in. The last time Mr Wen pushed reform proposals was before a key Communist party meeting in the autumn of 2010. However, when jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel peace prize, the backlash in Beijing saw the campaign cut off at the knees. As China's power grows, it is tempting to take the realist line that human rights should take a back seat to the important business that the two countries must conduct - on the global economy, on nuclear proliferation and halting climate change. In his recent book On China, Henry Kissinger urged the two Pacific powers to come together in a community of interests. Hillary Clinton flirted with the same idea when she first became secretary of state, arguing that human rights "can't interfere" with other vital issues on the US-China agenda. Yet the reality is that human rights and political ideas are at the core of the relationship between the two countries. The so-called pivot to Asia that the Obama administration is implementing is not just about sending a few marines to Australia. Mr Obama has made it crystal clear it is part of a long-term project to underpin economic and political freedom in the region. The fact that the only potential challenger to this US-led order is a one-party state is not a side-issue, but a central pre-occupation for American strategists. India is doing many of the same things that Washington finds unsettling about China - building aircraft carriers and advanced ballistic missile systems. But the US trusts that democratic India will use these tools in a responsible way. It does not have the same confidence about China. At the same time, China's Communist leaders are not being paranoid when they speculate that Washington would like to see them eased out of power. The Chinese Communist party is "on the wrong side of history," as Bill Clinton famously once put it. From their point of view, they are absolutely right to be suspicious about US intentions. The fate of Chen Guangcheng is not one of those minor blips that will be brushed under the diplomatic carpet. Instead, it is the public display of a clash of ideas that will be at the heart of international politics over the coming decade.