Tucked away in a Chinese prison, Hu Jia was honored by the European Union with the bloc’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, much to the dismay of Chinese officials.

Hu Jia began as an activist for HIV/AIDS patients in China, but through his work for patients (and orphans whose parents perished from the disease), he learned of even more egregious human rights abuses in the country. In April, Hu was imprisoned for charges of sedition, or incitement against the government.

It was this work that determined his selection; European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that by choosing Hu Jia, the 27-nation European Union was “sending out a signal of clear support to all those who support human rights in China,” according to The Associated Press.

China, however, was not the happiest of countries. The government in Beijing had already drawn staunch criticism from the International Olympic Committee and nations around the world for their treatment of protesters at the Beijing 2008 Olympics.

In fact, Hu Jia’s wife, Zeng Jinyan, was one of the protesters removed from Beijing before the start of the Olympic Games.

Human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have heralded the move by the European Union as brave and bold. And so it should be.

But I wonder why it was the European Union and not the “defender of the world,” America, that had the courage to make such a gutsy stand.

The European Union indeed has a great deal to lose from this choice. China is a major trade partner and has veto power in the Security Council of the United Nations. Also, focusing on China’s negative track record with human-rights issues could hinder their willingness to cooperate in other global issues such as reducing carbon emissions.

But the United States would stand to lose the same things. In fact, America could potentially fare better, as it is possibly the major player in the world today, especially with China. Insistence on the part of the U.S. president (or Congress) could pressure China enough to actually change its ways, at least a little. So why have we not done anything?

The answer is simple: America is busy with other things.

First, it is an election year, so Americans are focused on who to elect as our next president rather than on issues of a global context. Second, we are in the midst of an economic crisis, so we rarely look outside our own backyards to see what is going on in the world.

But perhaps most unfortunately, America rarely interferes when it is a matter of true importance. Sure, we were happy to get involved in Iraq, Korea and Vietnam, but we are too busy when it really counts.

The U.S. was too busy to send more than a few dozen Marines to Somalia to help with humanitarian aid during its bloody civil war.

We were too afraid to actually call the bloodbath in Rwanda a “genocide” because it would mean backing that statement up with military forces. And when forces were sent to Armenia and Kosovo in the 1990s, there were not nearly enough to ensure the safety of those being ethnically annihilated.

Most recently, the U.S. has publicly declared the situation in Darfur to be genocide, but when China vetoed a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Darfur, the U.S. placidly sat down with arms crossed, as if to say, “Our hands are tied.”

So why should we expect anything different in this instance? Hundreds of thousands of people are sent to prison in China for “sedition,” which translates to anything the Communist regime in power dislikes, but the U.S. government has done essentially nothing.

To the European Union, I say kudos. To the U.S. government, I say it should have been you. The Chinese government fears that the bestowing of a European peace award on a Chinese human rights activist is a “plot to intervene in Chinese internal affairs.” If only it were.

Janne is a criminology and criminal justice graduate student and can be reached at janne.gaub@asu.edu.