The Washington Post on Wednesday ran a commentary by its China bureau chief Simon Denyer, which accused Britain, as its headline suggested, of "bending over backward to prove its friendship to China."

What sour grapes!

The article criticized the British government as having been "working overtime to ingratiate itself with Beijing" and for "complete kowtowing to the Chinese dictatorship." The article also mocked British Chancellor George Osborne for envisioning a "golden relationship" between China and the UK.

The British newspaper The Times also ran an article blasting China's "despotism," and demanded that the British government should raise the human rights issue when Chinese President Xi Jinping visits Britain next week.

Apparently the concept of a "golden era" between the two countries has made some people uncomfortable. The former imperial power is placing much of its future on China. This has hurt the twisted dignity of those who still consider the West the center of the world.

Britain is preparing the highest-level treatment for the visiting of Xi, which is seen as a sign of London's new policy of intensifying Sino-UK cooperation. The national interests of Britain are the foundation of this policy. The country, which has rich memory of its proud past, is eager to keep up with the times. As a result, British Prime Minister David Cameron or Osborne will not blink in front of the "human rights fighters."

When those people attacked China's human rights record, many do not really know what they are talking about. They simply shouted slogans and quoted some of the Chinese "dissidents," who describe a picture that are out of pace with the real social momentum in China.

Hundreds of millions of people have shrugged off poverty since China's reform and opening-up began over three decades ago. People who could barely afford to buy a bicycle now are traveling around the world. Why did the critics turn a blind eye to all these?

Many Western politicians are clear that the debate over China's human rights is more a game of Western ideology, which is not realistic for China. Some of the politicians do touch on human rights issues under media pressures, but they know when to stop, in order not to let the debate hinder rational China policies.

What will the ideological differences mean for China and the West? The answer will affect the international relations of the 21 century.

China and Britain are breaking outdated mind-sets and exploring new highs in their cooperation. Such efforts will dwarf the disturbances under the guise of justice.