home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94TT0521>
- <title>
- May 02, 1994: The Political Interest
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
- May 02, 1994 Last Testament of Richard Nixon
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- THE POLITICAL INTEREST: Page 57
- KEEP CHINA TRADE
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>BY MICHAEL KRAMER
- </p>
- <p> Bill Clinton, addicted to compromise, is again close to foolishly
- splitting the difference on a crucial foreign policy issue.
- The question this time is whether the U.S. should continue or
- retard the growing two-way trade between America and China.
- By June 3, the President must decide to extend or revoke Beijing's
- most-favored-nation trading status.
- </p>
- <p>The tug between ideals and interests has produced a mush of
- mixed signals since Clinton took office. After saying before
- he was elected that he would deny MFN to China, Clinton continued
- the policy last May, but only conditionally. He threatened a
- cutoff this spring if Beijing's human-rights record failed to
- demonstrate "overall significant progress." It hasn't. Now,
- says House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Lee Hamilton,
- Clinton "can't renew MFN unless he lies."
- </p>
- <p>Clinton faces four choices. He can revoke MFN, affirm America's
- moral principles and cripple Chinese-American commerce, which
- last year totaled almost $40 billion. Gone in the process would
- probably be any chance of enlisting Beijing's help in rolling
- back North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. Gone too would be
- approximately 200,000 high-paying U.S. export jobs, which is
- why Treasury, Commerce and White House economic officials favor
- retaining MFN.
- </p>
- <p>A second course would distinguish between goods produced by
- private and state-run enterprises. Privately made Chinese products
- would enjoy MFN; the rest wouldn't. "Sounds good, but it's hard
- to see it working," says Michel Oksenberg, who was Jimmy Carter's
- top China hand. "The Chinese have an infinite genius for changing
- labels. And what would happen to the investments of those U.S.
- firms involved in joint ventures only partially owned by the
- state, or to products made privately with components supplied
- by government concerns?"
- </p>
- <p>A third option would extend MFN with less rigorous trip wires.
- "Perhaps human rights could be a general condition rather than
- one that's filled with specific conditions," said Secretary
- of State Warren Christopher on March 13. Any compromise, he
- added, could "move the relationship to a new and more significant
- level." And a more hypocritical one as well.
- </p>
- <p>Clinton's best bet would be to decouple the trade and human-rights
- issues entirely. Taiwan and South Korea prove that political
- liberalization follows prosperity. As a vibrant economy creates
- a robust middle class, ordinary citizens increasingly seek to
- influence government actions, pressure that even authoritarians
- must eventually accommodate. Revoking MFN would restrain China's
- economic growth, thus causing democracy's prospects to suffer.
- </p>
- <p>Decoupling the issues, in fact, could increase Clinton's ability
- to criticize Beijing's internal policies (especially after Deng
- Xiaoping dies, when spasms of chaos and repression may occur
- as a struggle for power ensues). Free from fear that bashing
- Beijing would reignite the MFN debate, the President could openly
- embrace China's dissidents and encourage U.S. firms to voluntarily
- tie their China business to improved human-rights practices,
- as many American companies did when apartheid flourished in
- South Africa. If conditions so worsened that punitive actions
- were called for, the U.S. could champion cutbacks in international
- lending; China is currently the leading recipient of World Bank
- loans.
- </p>
- <p>Above all, decoupling would obviate the need to lie. A forthright
- admission that a policy isn't working can project leadership
- and gain credibility for those who call it squarely. The choice
- is not whether the U.S. should isolate China. That is impossible.
- The goal is to avoid perpetuating an ineffectual linkage that
- could isolate America from China.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-